←back to thread

Is the world becoming uninsurable?

(charleshughsmith.substack.com)
478 points spking | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.211s | source
Show context
bluedevil2k ◴[] No.42733208[source]
Like we see in California, when the government sets a price ceiling, insurance companies just leave. Same in Florida. If the free market truly was allowed run normally, the insurance rates in Pacific Palisades or on the Florida coast would be so high that no one could afford to live there. Is that a bad thing? If someone was living in a house near where they tested missiles, we'd call them crazy. At what point can we say the same about people building and rebuilding over and over in these disaster areas.
replies(20): >>42733219 #>>42733293 #>>42733338 #>>42733367 #>>42733486 #>>42733536 #>>42733984 #>>42734013 #>>42734047 #>>42734060 #>>42734202 #>>42734459 #>>42734714 #>>42734874 #>>42739590 #>>42740487 #>>42741749 #>>42742138 #>>42743881 #>>42744799 #
underwater ◴[] No.42733293[source]
Price caps always seem like such a transparent political move.
replies(1): >>42733332 #
mgiampapa ◴[] No.42733332[source]
How about profit caps? I feel like government stepping in and being the insurer with a sufficiently large pool of risk to spread around lets them set a fair rate without the need to make a return or answer to shareholders.

To some extent this has helped with health insurance. Each year I get a check back from my insurer saying they didn't spend enough on my care vs my premiums.

replies(9): >>42733343 #>>42733377 #>>42733396 #>>42733458 #>>42733468 #>>42733898 #>>42733997 #>>42734006 #>>42734550 #
csomar ◴[] No.42733458[source]
Sure. Because the response of a failure in governance is more government? What you are proposing is "unfair". You are essentially suggesting that the rest of the country subsidize a subset who wants to live near high-risk areas. Me too want to live in a dense forest and also have my house by the edge of the river.

You could make the argument for this for healthcare, since no one can choose which illness he is born with. But choosing your housing location is a "choice". And you can/should move somewhere else where it is less risky.

replies(3): >>42733502 #>>42734404 #>>42734645 #
macinjosh ◴[] No.42733502[source]
People choose to smoke, overeat, engage in risky activities that can cause injury near and long term (Rock climbing, riding motorcycles, football, MMA). Why should society pay for these choices?
replies(4): >>42733626 #>>42734151 #>>42734411 #>>42734835 #
1. Panzer04 ◴[] No.42734835[source]
Because from a moral standpoint most people agree that we shouldn't allow people to go without treatment, regardless of their poor choices. From a national standpoint it also doesn't make sense to allow people to become cripples for lack of money, reducing their economic value.

Injuries also hurt, so it's not like people don't have other disincentives to avoid injury aside from the price. This isn't the case in other areas, where it's purely a monetary penalty and thus removing that penalty results in way more of that thing taking place.