Let me rephrase. If they refused to insure any house that was a high risk for one factor. That would be a very sizable chunk of the country. Even if they only refused to insure it for the thing it was high risk for, it would make unsurance on the house pointless. Flood zones and wildfire zones particularly are expending every year. Hurricane zones used to be ok to insure because hurricanes didn’t hit too hard too often. But they are stronger and more frequent, so much of Florida has a very short list of insurers which will trend to zero in the near future. While I agree everyone should move out of florida because of the shitty politics, that isn’t really practical.
Thats why i pointed at building codes. Require building that will survive the threat. Then people will have to pay more for them which discourages people from building in those areas at least.
No it doesn’t. Those people need to be essentially bailed out if/when their house is destroyed. Most of them had no idea what they were getting into when they bought it. And we bail out companies, so why not people. But that buy out should be to buy the land for a reasonable price, or if they want to rebuild, they will have to sink extra money of thier own into meeting the requirements of new buildings for that area. In some areas they may want to incentivize rebuilding to the new standard, in some they wouldn’t.
Insurance as it is now, only pays to rebuild such that it can burn down again. So even raising the price on that doesn’t solve the problem. It will just end up with the cost of insurance being wrapped into the mortgage eventually.
What a silly thing to say.
Obviously, if one insurer refused to cover what ever thing, they would lose all their customers to other insurers who covered sensible risks.
The point is, you can’t insure against risks that are too likely to occur.
Let me rephrase. If they refused to insure any house that was a high risk for one factor. That would be a very sizable chunk of the country. Even if they only refused to insure it for the thing it was high risk for, it would make unsurance on the house pointless. Flood zones and wildfire zones particularly are expending every year. Hurricane zones used to be ok to insure because hurricanes didn’t hit too hard too often. But they are stronger and more frequent, so much of Florida has a very short list of insurers which will trend to zero in the near future. While I agree everyone should move out of florida because of the shitty politics, that isn’t really practical.
The cost of insurance needs to equal the risk though.
If a house is going to get burned down every year, who pays to re-build it?
It isn’t practical to expect everyone to move out of florida, but climate change is impractical.
Thats why i pointed at building codes. Require building that will survive the threat. Then people will have to pay more for them which discourages people from building in those areas at least.
Maybe. That doesn’t really help all of the existing buildings though.
No it doesn’t. Those people need to be essentially bailed out if/when their house is destroyed. Most of them had no idea what they were getting into when they bought it. And we bail out companies, so why not people. But that buy out should be to buy the land for a reasonable price, or if they want to rebuild, they will have to sink extra money of thier own into meeting the requirements of new buildings for that area. In some areas they may want to incentivize rebuilding to the new standard, in some they wouldn’t. Insurance as it is now, only pays to rebuild such that it can burn down again. So even raising the price on that doesn’t solve the problem. It will just end up with the cost of insurance being wrapped into the mortgage eventually.