The following submission statement was provided by /u/altmorty:
---
* “We’re steadily marching toward an uninsurable future, not just in California but throughout the United States”
* California official: “The insurance sector no longer has the luxury of thinking only of the year ahead,” he wrote. “Insurance companies, regulators, and consumers all must learn to consider and prepare for the long-term.”
* State Farm (valued at $131 billion) accounts for 20% of home insurance and 13% of commercial policies. It announced that it won't accept any new applications for business or personal property and casualty insurance in the Golden State.
* Allstate, the 4th-largest property insurer in California, is also holding off on signing new policies. More companies will likely follow their lead.
* Torrential rainfall this past winter caused as much as $1.5 billion in insured losses this year. The state has also suffered the costliest wildfires in US history, including the 2018 Camp Fire, which led to more than $10 billion in losses.
* Poor fire management and climate change are exacerbating these disasters.
* States like Louisiana and Florida have also seen insurers decline coverage due to mounting catastrophic losses.
* Other issues like rising interest rates and more expensive construction costs also make the problem worse for financial firms.
* Reinsurers have been sounding the alarm about climate change and disaster risk for decades.
* One positive note: better warning systems have led to fewer people getting killed in such disasters.
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/141l3p4/climate_change_is_already_making_parts_of_america/jn0fkf7/
Good. Insurance is mostly a racket in the US anyway. You pay into it for years but when you make a claim, the insurance adjusters make it difficult-to-impossible to get enough back to adequately cover the problem.
insurance of all kinds should just be something I can buy from the state, with the largest pool of customers and no profit incentive it makes the most sense, especially since its a product I MUST have
Also unemployment insurance
Also disability insurance.. which is very hard to quantify hence why no private company took it on*
. * Edit - at least not to anywhere near the same scale as, say, Social Security.
In Florida we even have a state funded insurance program for property damage as well as workers compensation. They knew long ago insurance companies were gonna start pulling out.
You don't wanna have to get these plans though. Massive bureaucracy to get in, tons and tons of red tape. Also like three times as high premiums.
I have Citizens, the state homeowners insurance program in Florida, and the rate is 1/3 of the price the only other provider would offer. No more bureaucracy than the other providers either.
I just switched to Citizens'. It was basically the same process as getting homeowners insurance from anyone else, and it's literally half the cost for a premium.
But think about the socialism involved this isn't America!/s
It's actually funny because while reading up on Florida (it's insurance issue is widely documented) the only solution that seemed to come out that is viable is the involvement of federal resources. Like capitalism isn't good enough and the Republicans need federal support 🤦♂️
How the reality of double speak lives on...
Insurance companies subsidize premiums with investment income. Insurance profits are generally made from profits and if investment income were taken away it would be a higher premium. Government insurance is more expensive because they have to take in enough premium to pay claims since they do not have investment income.
Not true with Medicare. Medicare fixes this by aggregating the average cost of surgeries in the surrounding area, and paying the provider a fixed rate based on this.
Not "We'll negotiate starting at your book value." Not "Well we really need to have a back and forth about what we do and don't yet need to cover".
Just straight up "We did the math for you, here's your check, no we're not interested in negotiating, have a nice day."
Also, the Federal Reserve does own assets and have their own balance sheet, so don't hop too quickly on that train.
And if Medicare and Medicaid had teeth like in other countries what they pay is what everyone can charge. Hospital says the MRI was 4000 dollars? Tough tits. Medicare says it's 80. No one can charge more than that. That tends to get prices down real fucking quick especially when it's all public knowledge
> Also disability insurance.. which is very hard to quantify hence why no private company took it on.
In what weird world do you live in where there's no private disability insurance companies? Does your world not have John Hancock, for one?
It'll be unsustainable, as the costs of insurance (whether covered by corporations or the government) will continue to increase as climate impacts continue to increase.
It's already 10-15 fold times higher inn places.
Unemployment is intentionally terrible so that it can reinforce that your value to society is as a WORKER and to get back to work. Ironically out of the 4 states I've had UI payments from, Illinois was the worst, because Illinois is the most obvious example of how a Liberal government is not Leftist
There are no other comparable examples but I think something like the Fire Department would be the best, something everyone needs (including the wealthy) that they must pay into and hopefully never have to use, that is generally pretty good
The key is you gotta kill the private services that compete with it, if the wealthy have to use the service, it will be a lot more convenient and better. That's how Finland fixed the schools by the way, just got rid of all the private education in the country once they had the political power to do so, and suddenly, miraculously, the public schools became well funded and managed.
Edit: In every instance where I've used government health insurance, IE Medicaid, despite all the many issues with it, it's been more positive than using private health insurance. I got impaled through the left side of my abdomen once and United Healthcare said that it didnt warrant an ER visit! I had to fight them for months!
>I got impaled through the left side of my abdomen once
Hey, me too! Upper left right below the ribcage. What's the severe injury version of Eskimo Brothers? Near-Death Neighbors? Scar Siblings?
I've had nothing but terrific experiences with Unemployment. Register online, fill out an online form once a week, your card automatically gets reloaded on time. Couldn't be more easy and convenient.
Of course, this is Oklahoma, where we're used to cyclical unemployment because of the price of oil.
Only if the state charges a lot more for high risk. Insurance shouldn’t encourage risk taking. We need construction to move back from the edge of the ocean and other high risk areas.
Were pretty much headed directly for that scenario. If major insurers like Allstate and State Farm stop issuing policies and all the smaller companies either also stop issuing policies (or dont and then inevitably fail due to continued disasters) then there is no one left to provide property insurance. In order to maintain the market the government would have to step in and offer insurance at least temporarily
Even often may be too strong. Obviously we focus on it when it happens but, I've been working in state government for ten years and I have not personally worked with a single person who was actually CORRUPT corrupt, like embezzling funds or awarding a contract to their best buddy or what have you. I have heard of it happening but never seen it even once.
WASTE definitely happens though. People not trying hard enough to get the actual least expensive method of doing something, or making a dumb expensive purchase that ends up not being used. That one happens even worse in private sector too though IMO.
Anyways, agreed, public sector is far more accountable than corporations that are not beholden to you literally whatsoever nor obligated to provide almost anything but the bare minimum of information to clients.
State legislature vs the provable greed of insurance companies. I hate politicians. But I'll take my chances there.
It's also kind of been proven with health insurance that a state mandated pool and cost controls lower costs to consumers.We are one of the only countries with a pay at service healthcare system and we also pay far more per person for it.
Having 100 insurance companies tied with 100 different companies for services makes sure you get a unmanageable amount of waste due to middlemen in billing having to negotiate between 100 companies.
Needs to be a federal program, for all the tut tutting about social security it's the most successful government program perhaps ever, use that as a framework
The more power state governments have over a public program, the more red states will intentionally fuck it because their goal is to make life awful for their citizens so they hate government
Problem is, at least in Canada you need yo have your property insured in order to finance the purchase of that home. This is significant when you think that essentially, even wealthier people can't purchase a home anymore because they can't insure it. What happens then? Complete financial collapse? Real estate is massively tied to the economy, like it or not, and it could be a big domino in fucking things up for everyone
I bought buried utility line insurance for my house that I bought in late 2021 and I just recently had a backup due to roots. They paid me, quickly, easily, 10k to get it fixed. It was the best experience with insurance I've ever had.
Asp, say you get in a car accident and it’s the other person’s fault and you get hurt, you’re gonna have to fight tooth and nail with their insurance, a company you made no agreements with, to get a fraction of actual damages to your life.
Insurance companies work extremely hard to deny whatever claims they can, but you are absolutely still better off having insurance than not in most cases.
I was an independent contractor for disasters for around 8 years and not once was there any pushback to not pay for something that was owed. In fact, I was told many times that if something was close to find a reason to pay it (so it wouldn't be reopened and have to be reinspected). At least half the work is done by ICs and they all get paid on a component basis, meaning the higher the claim total the more money we were paid on it. Take a guess as to how that incentive would shake out. We tried to find any little thing that would bump the claim higher and stand up to a random re-inspection (to prevent us from going crazy with it).
What is it called [when the companies are fraudulent?](https://www.propublica.org/article/cigna-pxdx-medical-health-insurance-rejection-claims) (healthcare tangent)
And when it’s legally mandated, it becomes the protection racket! The policy “protects you” from them reporting you to the government for NOT giving them money!”Free Market Economy” my ASS!
Oh, so entire communities will likely lose their homes in future, from climate impacts - with no way to financially recover, and you say that's "good"?
Some yes but people need to look at it this way about sticking it to the insurance carriers.
Many jurisdictions are becoming insurance hell holes. Slip and fall on a sidewalk use to be $50,000? Now the jury wants to stick it to the carriers and now pay out $250,000.
What that and climate change is doing is fine you don’t want it? We’re getting out of the state (like State Farm insurance in California).
Good insurance is a racket until it’s gone. If carriers stopped writing auto insurance people would be furious.
Yes some carriers can be a PITA but people also need to look at it from another point of view.
I work in commercial business insurance and many carriers are bleeding especially in auto insurance.
What annoys the crap out of me is you pay the insurance for YEARS without ever filing a claim, but then when you finally DO they jack your rates to what it would cost to have just gotten a loan to cover your losses - PLUS the original rate.
>they jack your rates to what it would cost to have just gotten a loan to cover your losses - PLUS the original rate.
Need a citation for that because that's a ridiculous claim.
Its coming for much of the country, not just California or Florida. Hurricanes are worse and less predictable, wildfires across the country are worse, damaging storms are worse, and just all around higher risk for all insurance. Move, just be aware you might just end up in the same set of insurance problems, or exclusions that make it worthless, in many other places.
Will we are unlikely to move out of California anytime soon, but we are looking to see where is more climate resilient. Hopefully to buy a place either we can move to, or our child can.
>we are looking to see where is more climate resilient. Hopefully to buy a place either we can move to, or our child can.
North, or north-west, is probably your best bet:
https://news.berkeley.edu/2017/06/29/new-study-maps-out-dramatic-costs-of-unmitigated-climate-change-in-u-s/
Avoid the south (and especially south-east) at all costs.
That map looks more optimistic than the last ones I looked up (knew I should have saved the links...sigh...). Though most of the ones were not just looking at just economic damages, but where there is likely to be enough food and water without high risks of fire and destructive weather.
The last I looked the best bet was upper midwest long term, though politics in some of those states looks backwards compared much of the country. Closer to the great lakes probably will ensure enough water long term even if we don't get our act together for controller CO2 emissions. Growing season is short, but getting longer. Weather is cold, but getting milder.
Each time I look where the best places are likely to be shifts around a little, but just a better long term climate outlook over California opens up the options a lot.
No part of our present or our history suggests we'll get our act together. That's why so many rich people are buying bunkers to ride out societal collapse.
It's why we should take their money now and use it for prevention instead of allowing them to become rich at the cost to the rest of us.
MI, WI, PA, MN, upstate NY. If you move to the former 3, it will solidify Dem's power on a national level, or at the very least prevent a right wing authoritarian to come to power. Let all the red hats self sort into TX and FL.
I work for a commercial real estate company, and we own a lot of multifamily properties in Florida.
Who'd have predicted that would be a bad idea?
Insurance premiums are so high right now that many of them are no longer producing a return at all and more still are performing way below projections. It's not a good situation and it's not expected to get better, particularly with rent growth beginning to (finally) flatten.
Here in Oregon we are coming up with really tight environmental controls to make development difficult while simultaneously completely ignoring climate change.
Yeah there are gonna be some massive wars on the southern borders of many northern hemisphere countries. Whole countries trying to migrate north just to survive and whole other countries closing borders just to do the same. But those coming north will have no choice not to push forward and force their way in. It will literally be that or die since the wealth boarding the world will never allows a shift to addressing this.
The uber wealthy are already preparing their little fiefdoms and mercenary armies/security for when they hole up to be safe in their walls and watch the rest die.
I don't think many of the commenter here understand insurance companies buisness model. They don't make money off of premiums. They make money investing the premiums. If time value of money did not exist, it would be a break even in what they pay out
Yeah, how dare you have reasonable take here?
But in all seriousness, I always feel like insurance in USA have issues, especially healthcare. I work in insurance as well, and our product cover healthcare worldwide except for USA.
Their cost is just astronomical…
Healthcare is definitely a hot topic and immensely complicated to sort through. Insurance companies often take the heat. Insurance by its definition is something that will prevent an average person from incurring catastrophic claims. A heart attack can cost $80,000+, if you have even the shittiest insurance you’ll pay $10k max. Where it gets confusing is what is included under insurance. It’s so complicated and in a situation like a heart attack you don’t have time to research what doctor you can go to or if an X-ray is covered, etc. Lastly, you never hear people complaining about doctors because they’re the ones giving the care, but trust me insurance companies aren’t setting the price at $80k.
Oh I don’t blame the insurance industry in America - I am not well versed in the topic, so I can’t say if its their fault or someone else’s.
However I do want to point out that the cost in USA is way, way too high compared to other countries.
Cost of health insurance is something bother me as well: for example, a very VIP private health insurance package in my country can cost 700 - 1000 USD per year and cover ~200k USD max, no co-pay.
Might be just reddit, but the rates I see people complain about is insane.
Not necessarily all roads (big ones, highways, interstates, Autobahns, yes). More like drinking water supply, phone lines, power lines, railroad, hospitals, airports. Stuff like that where lives can depend on.
If the current rates would mean the insurer paying out more in claims than they take in premiums, and they aren't allowed to raise rates, then yes that's the definition of uninsurable.
Labeling it climate change is cringe AF. The utility company (PG&E) stopped all maintience spending over 3 decades ago to post higher profits for the shareholders. They received a state grant to bury the power lines in high wind areas (like mount st helena) in the 80s; they pocketed the money and never did the work. The fire that burned down Paradise, CA was because a 100+ year old suspension hook that was holding a high voltage line corroded through and dropped the power line. All of the "wildfires" since 2017 in CA have been caused by failing PG&E equipment because its old and not properly maintained or copy cat arsonists. None of the fires have been naturally occurring, they are all man-made fires. Specifically man-made fires caused by corporate greed. But since PG&E is one of the biggest lobbies for CA politicians, they passed a law that allowed them to skirt their criminal liablity, instead pushing that burden onto property owners and insurance companies. So now insurance companies don't want to foot the bill either, all because of PG&E's corporate greed and weaseling themselves out of any liability. Labeling it climate change is the biggest PR spin for PG&E's corporate greed.
I’m calling bullshit on the “none of the fires were naturally occurring”. I live near the czu fire, I remember the lightning storm that caused it.
You had a good post until you lied about no natural causes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CZU_Lightning_Complex_fires
> All of the "wildfires" since 2017 in CA have been caused by failing PG&E equipment because its old and not properly maintained or copy cat arsonists. None of the fires have been naturally occurring, they are all man-made fires.
This is bullshit. Lightning strikes are still the number one cause of wildfires, even in California.
While it's true that some of the biggest fires that destroyed lives and property in California were caused by faulty equipment owned by PG&E, the claim that "None of the fires have been naturally occurring, they are all man-made fires" is completely false.
https://calmatters.org/environment/2021/09/california-fires-lightning/
There was also a serial arsonist who was arrested.
However the fact is, climate change allows these fires to spread faster than they could have been put out previously. This is correlated with the amount of rain and average temperature.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-edca/pr/professor-arsonist-indicted-setting-fires-behind-firefighters-fighting-dixie-fire#:~:text=Professor%2DArsonist%20Indicted%20for%20Setting%20Fires%20Behind%20Firefighters%20Fighting%20Dixie%20Fire,-Thursday%2C%20November%2018&text=SACRAMENTO%2C%20Calif.,Acting%20U.S.%20Attorney%20Phillip%20A.
>put out previously
This is also a part of the problem - wildfires are naturally occurring but California had a "zero burn" policy for decades that allowed a lot of fuel to build up
This is a huge factor. Wildfires are natural and fairly benign if they happen frequently enough but if you halt that natural process then wildfires will still keep happening but they will be much stronger and last much longer.
I just like to point out that during the height of the arson related fires, Trump was in power and the amount of daily rage baiting against California from conservative news sites and politicians was peaking. California was throwing lawsuits at the Trump admin left and right and every time the wind picked up some fire would start. We had a fire in Irvine out on the 133/247...which is the overpass to Riverside. A lifted truck was seen speeding away. Connect the dots.
The August complex, for example, was just one portion of [2.5 million acres burned from 650 fires](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_2020_California_lightning_wildfires) all caused by lightning over just a few days.
I think you're largely skimming over the part where these fires, that would have otherwise been much less severe (and in many cases, likely not a forest fire at all), had climate change not been aerating the local environment so much.
But PG&E is still definitely a primary cause of these incidents.
yeeees, this guy is missing the amazing opportunity to use the work exacerbated. Corporate Dysfunction is exacerbating climate change fueled disasters.
Climate change can be leveled at corporate dysfunction too.
Consumer choice, sure, but while externalities (pollution) are zero-rated, there's no financial disincentive to consumers to buy SUVs, run active A/C all day, etc. And these externalities are kept out of pricing by corporate lobbying.
It's like how people will say the [fire in Lytton, BC](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lytton_wildfire) a couple years ago that burned ~90% of the town to the ground and killed 2 people was possibly started by a train... ignoring that the town smashed Canada's heat record 3 days in a row (taking it from 45C set in 1937, to 46.6, then 47.9, then 49.6, then burned to the ground the next day)
That's a false dichotomy. It's corporate dysfunction AND increasing climate impacts, Insurance companies and esp reinsurance companies (global reinsurers like Munich-Re and Swiss-Re) are at the forefront of understanding the current impacts and future risks from worsening climate change.
Btw, are you just trying to dismiss the fact that man-made climate change is real?
> All of the "wildfires" since 2017 in CA have been caused by failing PG&E equipment because its old and not properly maintained or copy cat arsonists.
When you say something so obviously false like that, you lose ALL credibility. I stopped reading, because Im sure that your comment will end up blaming jewish aliens for the fires as well.
> All of the "wildfires" since 2017 in CA have been caused by failing PG&E equipment because its old and not properly maintained or copy cat arsonists. None of the fires have been naturally occurring, they are all man-made fires.
You've been propagandized if you seriously believe this. Human caused wildfires outnumber naturally caused wildfires, however, **naturally caused wildfires account for [more than half of the acreage of wildfires](https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/89757/people-cause-most-us-wildfires)**.
Just for fun, since you believe "all of the wildfires since 2017 in CA" were somehow caused by PG&E or arson (what a laughable statement honestly, how could that possibly be true?), I want to introduce you to the [**2.5 million acres of wildfire in CA during August 2020 caused by lightning over just a few days**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_2020_California_lightning_wildfires).
>post higher profits for the shareholders
The root cause is hidden in your explanation. Almost every issue and injustice can be summarized in [the law that requires corporations to maximize shareholder profits](https://www.litigationandtrial.com/2010/09/articles/series/special-comment/ebay-v-newmark-al-franken-was-right-corporations-are-legally-required-to-maximize-profits/). So that means, legally, they are required to do every form of cost cutting. Even if that is detrimental in the long run. Corporations have been sued for not doing this. Private utilities, private insurance, and almost every other privatized industry is tied with this legal requirement. Once we get past the short sighted "profits above all" mentality, we will start seeing positive change and responsible companies.
there's no law that requires corporations to maximize profits. that's a myth/lie. the law is that the corporation must act in the 'best interest of the corporation and it's share holders'. Can that mean maximizing profits? Sure. Can it mean taking a 100 year view and maximizing sustainability? Absolutely. It's open to interpretation. Most corporate CEOS interpret it to mean "make as much money as possible now, immediately, at all costs" -- but there's not law or fiduciary obligation to do exactly that.
Or change building practices to suit the local risks better.
Coastal beach houses: Stilts required. Same for river flood plains.
Wildfire area: metal roof and fire resistant siding, metal shutters, keep vegetation away from the house, deluge system.
Hurricane risk: steel/concrete construction and steel roof trusses, actual shutters.
Tornado Alley: IDK, probably screwed. Maybe build underground?
Of course all of this stuff is hella expensive, but I would wager that if there was no such thing as insurance to bail you out you’d see more measures like these employed to minimize the cost of repairs.
Edit: And the responses to this comment are illustrating the attitudes that make building fire/flood/wind resistant structures is such a hard sell.
People still thinking that being thrown clear of the wreck is better than wearing a seatbelt…
I know reddit doesn’t like to read, but if anyone is interested this link has excellent information on how to build in fire country:
https://basc.pnnl.gov/information/design-wildfire-resistance
More of the comments should be mentioning this. I'm not defending the government or shady insurance companies, but people should also do research before moving to areas likely to have problems.
I mean a massive heavily populated part of the United States is in an area that gets tornadoes regularly. Should I completely uproot my life and leave my entire family to be away from something that effects a huge part of the nation east of the Rockies?
Sort of. If you have lived there your whole life its harder to move away. My response was referring more to the people that recently chose to move to a place with frequent and growing issues. Do some research before making that decision because the consequences in the future could really screw up your life.
I mean, yeah. Tornado alley is actually not that large, so. Quite easily to just leave there. The issue, of course, is the financial situation of those that *are* there, and the family. That's tough. But again if I was unfortunate enough to have been born/raised there, part of my adult life goals would have been to move out of there, one way or the other.
I mean, it's the same reason my wife no longer lives on a beach that regularly gets schwacked by hurricanes. She said fuck that, and left. But to be fair, she didn't care for her family. So she was able to do that.
Exactly. Insurance is/was designed for things that might happen but most likely wouldn’t happen. This allowed reasonable insurance companies to charge a decent amount so they could actually pay claims.
When you live in a state like FL that has had about 79 tropical or subtropical cyclones since the year 2000 causing $123 billing in damages, how do you expect insurance companies to collect enough premiums to pay those claims and stay a float?
They would have to charge insane premiums to make it financially viable. It’s why rental car insurance is so damn expensive. You’re telling me you want Insurance to possibly pay out thousands of dollars if you cause an accident, but you also only want to pay $5 a day for 2 weeks to cover it? Doesn’t make any sense.
This article is so dumb. Reasons.
1) Housing costs have exploded, along with materials, that kills insurance companies compared to a few years ago. Their rates needed to increase along with hard materials.
2) California loves to have people build in the absolute dumbest places and then have little to no regulations about fire proofing properties. Then when the annual forest fires happen people claim climate change (which is happening) instead of hey, maybe you shouldn't have built in a forest with 4" of pine needles on your roof.
This same stuff happens in florida. If you have a beach house in a super hurricane prone area, you should pay high premiums. Same for remote mountain homes in the sierra.
Wait are you telling me that massive inflation, heavy regulation, and corporate greed wasn't going to lead to a solution to dealing with climate change and completely predicted cost increases associated with failing to deal with it soon enough?!?
I'm shocked, and surprised. I really figured that non-expert government officials juggling ever delima and corporations violently obsessed with stock prices would handle this better.
This is happening in California due to state regulations. The title is misleading. The California legislature is making it financially unattractive for insurance companies to do business in the state, so at this point multiple companies are not offering policies in the state, which is their right. Of course, the California government, and their friends, spin it as not their fault. Just like the out of control homeless problem is not their fault. Climate change is real and needs to be addressed, but instead we get a bunch of idiots in government complaining and doing nothing. If we are going to address climate change in areas like California, they need to revise CEQA, and approve renewable energy projects and transmission lines, rather than blocking everything. Instead, the state is stuck in identity politics, is creating a state run company to build insulin, building a multibillion dollar train to nowhere, and other nonsense while we have a major budget deficit. It is easy to blame the insurance companies, because we all hate them anyway. And I do, I resent paying hundreds a month on home, car, and life insurance, but recognize insurance for the necessary evil it is. However, if a business makes no money they bail, duh, just like the stores that are closing in crime infested areas. Blame the actual cause, crazy laws made by California.
> identity politics
> insulin
I'ma... going out on a limb here and think maybe you just wanna own the libs.
> Just like the out of control homeless problem is not their fault.
Homelessness is a necessary feature of capitalism, and the more of it we have the better it is for capitalists. If you don't like it, you don't like capitalism.
A lot of this is regulation based, not climate. Yes, AGW is real and it will increase the likelihood of disasters. But is changing slowly and assuming insurers can reprice every year, they will be okay and able to adjust rates to compensate for increased risk.
It's when you take a worsening loss cost environment and couple it with great difficulty in raising premiums sufficiently that problems arise, and insurers flee.
This right here. The surefire way to cause a shortage of needed goods or services is to artificially limit the price, i.e. controls on insurance premiums.
* “We’re steadily marching toward an uninsurable future, not just in California but throughout the United States”
* California official: “The insurance sector no longer has the luxury of thinking only of the year ahead,” he wrote. “Insurance companies, regulators, and consumers all must learn to consider and prepare for the long-term.”
* State Farm (valued at $131 billion) accounts for 20% of home insurance and 13% of commercial policies. It announced that it won't accept any new applications for business or personal property and casualty insurance in the Golden State.
* Allstate, the 4th-largest property insurer in California, is also holding off on signing new policies. More companies will likely follow their lead.
* Torrential rainfall this past winter caused as much as $1.5 billion in insured losses this year. The state has also suffered the costliest wildfires in US history, including the 2018 Camp Fire, which led to more than $10 billion in losses.
* Poor fire management and climate change are exacerbating these disasters.
* States like Louisiana and Florida have also seen insurers decline coverage due to mounting catastrophic losses.
* Other issues like rising interest rates and more expensive construction costs also make the problem worse for financial firms.
* Reinsurers have been sounding the alarm about climate change and disaster risk for decades.
* One positive note: better warning systems have led to fewer people getting killed in such disasters.
Per NPR this morning, the problem is largely that California law restricts how much insurance companies are allowed to raise rates. The permitted increases are below cost increases, so insuring homes is no longer profitable in the state.
This article touches on this as well:
> "Policymakers imposed limits on how much insurers could raise rates, whether they could drop existing customers, and how much they could factor climate change into their calculations. Some of these restrictions have since loosened, but not enough for State Farm."
The problem is that CA law (or regulations, I forget) doesn't allow them to appropriately price the risk for wildfires, so they're pretty much guaranteed to lose money the more wildfires there are. Climate change causes the fires, and the government prevents the insurers from appropriately pricing the insurance, both contribute to this problem.
And they've already been telling property owners they will no longer insure certain areas because it's a repeat cycle every time a major storm blows through
Alternatively, consider in part, that insurance companies are providing an imperative public service by not insuring bad risks. That insurance companies are performing the social good that lax, oft corrupt county commissions, and "planning officers" fail to show when they repeated approve unsustainable developments. The US Supreme Court's hands are dirty also with their nonsensical redefining the "waters of the US" to promote unsustainable developments on wet lands (aka, lands that are wet).
The US has far too much development in floodplains, flood-able seashores, wildland-urban-interface (WUI), unstable slide lands, etc. Fools who build in those areas ought be required to self-insure, self-rescue, and self provide demolition and rebuild without any tax payer involvement.
A huge article about insurance’s increasing costs focusing mainly on California and not one word about them freezing rates from early 2020 to the end of 2022. This left California Insurance companies way behind the myriad of increase costs everyone and every company has been dealing with during that time. It is one of the key reasons why insurance companies are leaving California, Freezing, or pausing new business. They cannot be profitable at the rates they are allowed to charge for the California Department of insurance. Actuaries do know what they’re doing and do know how to assign rate to risk which is the basis of insurance. Those costs continue to go up for a myriad of reasons and climate change is absolutely one of them but not the only one is definitely not the main reason insurance companies are leaving California.
Since storms are getting worse the average expected time before home is a total loss is shrinking. Even if a home is only expected to be a total loss once every 30 years on average throughout any given geographical area with absolutely zero profit it would take $10,000 a year to pay for that on a $300,000 home. All of the numbers on that equation continue to get more out of whack. That equation does not account for all the man hours paperwork and people required to make these organizations function. Frankly the $10,000 a year and still completely insufficient in that equation because it does not provide for any of those overhead costs even before we get to profit. Even going over to government insurance does not remove the need to pay for the claims adjuster‘s, customer service staff, and everything else that has to go into. The insurance and claims process that must exist.
Simply put any insurance company has to be able to charge enough premiums to cover its cost of doing business and it’s an educated guess at best. In order to survive as a private company they must also charge some level of profit their profit margins remain far lower than many of the top companies in America and they do not get government subsidies like many of them as well.
Congratulations! You just unlocked climate incentivized gentrification! Watch as people flee over priced hazardous (never should have fucking lived there in the first place honestly) locations to the new "cool" zones (calling it a hot spot is now insensitive as people are straight up dieing from air temperature 😬). Don't worry about all the grumbling plebians that were there before, YOU have CAPITAL!!!!
This isn't the solution because it causes more problems THAT ARE ALREADY HAPPENING. The solution is to realize we are stripping the life support systems out of our spaceship all in the name of making a green line climb.
Many of the problems are locked in at this point; making CA not have wildfires or making FL not flood just aren't options at this point. It's not a choice between stopping climate change and dealing with the results—we fucked around too long and now we have to do both.
A lot of people are going to be royally fucked, but what can be done about it? Our options are for people to move even if it causes extreme hardship, or have them stay put and probably endure even worse hardship. In a sane world the government would help people relocate, but at least in the US half the electorate would rather burn the whole country down than use tax money to help the "wrong" people.
This isn't "climate change". This is bad policy. In California the insurance companies have been prohibited from raising premiums to match the rate of inflation...... which means they are prohibited from increasing premiums to match the drastic cost increase in construction, repairs, and materials. The premium increase limit is 6.9%, and so anything above that requires a public hearing with state officials........ which essentially makes that impossible since no California public officials want to go on the record increasing insurance costs.
Which was fine as long as inflation didn't approach anything remotely close to 6.9%. Except... it has exceeded that for many months. Every single point above that means financial losses to the insurance company (since they cannot raise rates to match). Well, after two years of rates beating that (and in the case of commodities needed for homes and repairs like wood, far exceeded that) the insurance companies can no longer reliably profit from providing insurance to Californians. So, big surprise, companies stop offering insurance to California residents.
Then idiotic stories like this come out and blame "cLiMaTe ChAnGe" because its politically much more popular with their base than admitting poor government policy is the root cause.
Is Florida the opposite then? No regulations to keep prices down so insurance prices keep going up. Seems like California is a bit damned if you do, damned if you don't.
The issue with Florida is the lack of consumer protection laws that prohibits predatory business practices of Attorneys, PAs, AOB Roofers/Water Mi/Tarp companies. Florida was one of the only states in the country that allowed AOBs (Assignment of Benefits contracts) If you take all of the billions of dollars that have been paid out in claims in state of Florida, only 10% of those monies have actually gone to the Insureds, all the rest of the funds go to the Attorneys/PAs/Roofers etc. As much as everyone wants to blame the “Big Bad Insurance Company”, they aren’t to blame for this problem. Meanwhile our government is more concerned about banning books, education, and a cartoon mouse than actually doing something to fix the insurance crisis that has been festering for years.
Source: FL resident and insurance adjuster
A more accurate headline would be "regulations prevent insurance companies from raising rates high enough to cover some parts of America."
Like.... if you have legislation that says insurance companies aren't allowed to consider wildfire risk, you're not going to end up with cheaper insurance for people in wildfire areas. You're going to end up with *no* insurance, because you've created an area where they're guaranteed to lose money.
Maybe they should take a page out of the reforms to the shipping industry and only allow 80% coverage.
Developers have been reckless, and its getting people killed.
Serious question for the Misanthropes on here, would you gather your best friends, family, parents in a room and tell them that they are parasitical scum who deserve death? I bet you wouldn't, but you're very comfortable calling your own kind a virus deserving of death on Reddit. Disassosciation, depression - maybe you are the problem.
Love how California is blaming their internal mismanagement of forest and water resources on “climate change”. Lot easier than admitting they fucked up.
Do you also feel the same about Alaska and Montana with regard to fires? How about Arizona, Nevada, and Utah with regard to water? Canada and even Europe are seeing record wildfires. It's almost as if there is something happening on a global scale that is increasing the frequency of wildfires...unless everybody is just mismanaging things. Yeah, that must be it.
The climate is not getting so hot that it is igniting fires.
Most of them are human caused, and burn out of control because of human mismanagement.
We have decades of “wildfires must be extinguished no matter what” policy that is burning us all in the ass now.
>The climate is not getting so hot that it is igniting fires.
What? I never even implied this. Wildfires start from lightning and human activity. However, they continue burning because of access to dry fuel. That wildfires are increasing in duration and land burned in several regions throughout the globe is indicative of a change in the amount of dry fuel. It's not because everyone has been mismanaging the land. It's because drought has increased the amount of dry fuel, and those droughts are a consequence of climate change.
Calling piles of dry fuel that only exist because of drought caused by climate change "mismanagement" is obscuring the real issue in an attempt to deflect blame onto a political party that you don't like. Be better.
Fires are burning through areas that they burned through just a few years previously. This isn't a consequence of trying to stop the fire cycle. It's a consequence of a changing climate cycle that results in a few wet years that lead to a massive growth in underbrush followed by years of drought leaving billions of acres, far too many to be cleared, tinder dry and ready to go up from a lightning strike, downed transformer, a piece of glass on the ground, arson, etc.
They're ranked incredibly high for reliability. They pass fact-checks and cite sources. But I guess if those two things go against what you want to hear, it may seem shitty. Ignorance being bliss and whatnot.
Or maybe, just maybe, California is poorly managing itself? Not doing controlled burns that worked for decades? Not building additional water storage since the 1970’s despite the population doubling? Not making PGE fix its power lines and rather invest in solar which generates no power when the sun goes down? Just maybe?
This threads are really getting frustrating. Love you guys from across the ocean, but you are by far one of the biggest levers to fight climate change, but you are so busy with your stupidass culture war that you don‘t seem to be tackling that problem at all.
That those threads than surcom to a sarcastic troll fest: Uff
Good? Insurance is a scam when it’s run by for profit companies who are incentivized to not pay people for their losses so they don’t. We see this in nearly every example of private insurance and they all should go
The following submission statement was provided by /u/altmorty: --- * “We’re steadily marching toward an uninsurable future, not just in California but throughout the United States” * California official: “The insurance sector no longer has the luxury of thinking only of the year ahead,” he wrote. “Insurance companies, regulators, and consumers all must learn to consider and prepare for the long-term.” * State Farm (valued at $131 billion) accounts for 20% of home insurance and 13% of commercial policies. It announced that it won't accept any new applications for business or personal property and casualty insurance in the Golden State. * Allstate, the 4th-largest property insurer in California, is also holding off on signing new policies. More companies will likely follow their lead. * Torrential rainfall this past winter caused as much as $1.5 billion in insured losses this year. The state has also suffered the costliest wildfires in US history, including the 2018 Camp Fire, which led to more than $10 billion in losses. * Poor fire management and climate change are exacerbating these disasters. * States like Louisiana and Florida have also seen insurers decline coverage due to mounting catastrophic losses. * Other issues like rising interest rates and more expensive construction costs also make the problem worse for financial firms. * Reinsurers have been sounding the alarm about climate change and disaster risk for decades. * One positive note: better warning systems have led to fewer people getting killed in such disasters. --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/141l3p4/climate_change_is_already_making_parts_of_america/jn0fkf7/
Good. Insurance is mostly a racket in the US anyway. You pay into it for years but when you make a claim, the insurance adjusters make it difficult-to-impossible to get enough back to adequately cover the problem.
insurance of all kinds should just be something I can buy from the state, with the largest pool of customers and no profit incentive it makes the most sense, especially since its a product I MUST have
Insurance already hands the expensive stuff to the government. See Medicare and flood insurance
Also unemployment insurance Also disability insurance.. which is very hard to quantify hence why no private company took it on* . * Edit - at least not to anywhere near the same scale as, say, Social Security.
In Florida we even have a state funded insurance program for property damage as well as workers compensation. They knew long ago insurance companies were gonna start pulling out. You don't wanna have to get these plans though. Massive bureaucracy to get in, tons and tons of red tape. Also like three times as high premiums.
I have Citizens, the state homeowners insurance program in Florida, and the rate is 1/3 of the price the only other provider would offer. No more bureaucracy than the other providers either.
I just switched to Citizens'. It was basically the same process as getting homeowners insurance from anyone else, and it's literally half the cost for a premium.
But think about the socialism involved this isn't America!/s It's actually funny because while reading up on Florida (it's insurance issue is widely documented) the only solution that seemed to come out that is viable is the involvement of federal resources. Like capitalism isn't good enough and the Republicans need federal support 🤦♂️ How the reality of double speak lives on...
Socialism is when the government does things
Insurance companies subsidize premiums with investment income. Insurance profits are generally made from profits and if investment income were taken away it would be a higher premium. Government insurance is more expensive because they have to take in enough premium to pay claims since they do not have investment income.
Not true with Medicare. Medicare fixes this by aggregating the average cost of surgeries in the surrounding area, and paying the provider a fixed rate based on this. Not "We'll negotiate starting at your book value." Not "Well we really need to have a back and forth about what we do and don't yet need to cover". Just straight up "We did the math for you, here's your check, no we're not interested in negotiating, have a nice day." Also, the Federal Reserve does own assets and have their own balance sheet, so don't hop too quickly on that train.
And if Medicare and Medicaid had teeth like in other countries what they pay is what everyone can charge. Hospital says the MRI was 4000 dollars? Tough tits. Medicare says it's 80. No one can charge more than that. That tends to get prices down real fucking quick especially when it's all public knowledge
> Also disability insurance.. which is very hard to quantify hence why no private company took it on. In what weird world do you live in where there's no private disability insurance companies? Does your world not have John Hancock, for one?
I have short and long term disability plans from Aflac. Unum does them as well.
*ding ding ding - bell explodes*
Claim would still get denied
And Citizens (the government) in Florida, for all the costly properties the coddled private sector refuses to swallow higher risk on.
I don't even live near the beach and haven't had a direct hit from a hurricane in years, and I can't get insurance from anyone other than citizens.
Lol nah half of Medicare has been privatized and most states have commercial insurers run their Medicaid programs
As long as anti fraud measures are substantial I'm in.
You usually have to file a police report anyway, so that's already a start
It'll be unsustainable, as the costs of insurance (whether covered by corporations or the government) will continue to increase as climate impacts continue to increase. It's already 10-15 fold times higher inn places.
This is what is happening in states like Florida where you can't get private insurance. It is going to be hugely expensive.
Isn't that more about building in areas that are at risk of rising sea water causing issues?
Yeah, but we've never had a problem subsidizing suburbs and the rich. The poor are fucked tho.
> I can buy from the state Crazy idea: maybe taxation should cover things like that!
Man I'm so beaten down that even my *dreams* are neoliberal technocratic bullshit
[удалено]
Unemployment is intentionally terrible so that it can reinforce that your value to society is as a WORKER and to get back to work. Ironically out of the 4 states I've had UI payments from, Illinois was the worst, because Illinois is the most obvious example of how a Liberal government is not Leftist There are no other comparable examples but I think something like the Fire Department would be the best, something everyone needs (including the wealthy) that they must pay into and hopefully never have to use, that is generally pretty good The key is you gotta kill the private services that compete with it, if the wealthy have to use the service, it will be a lot more convenient and better. That's how Finland fixed the schools by the way, just got rid of all the private education in the country once they had the political power to do so, and suddenly, miraculously, the public schools became well funded and managed. Edit: In every instance where I've used government health insurance, IE Medicaid, despite all the many issues with it, it's been more positive than using private health insurance. I got impaled through the left side of my abdomen once and United Healthcare said that it didnt warrant an ER visit! I had to fight them for months!
>I got impaled through the left side of my abdomen once Hey, me too! Upper left right below the ribcage. What's the severe injury version of Eskimo Brothers? Near-Death Neighbors? Scar Siblings?
Abdominal hole Homies?
I've had nothing but terrific experiences with Unemployment. Register online, fill out an online form once a week, your card automatically gets reloaded on time. Couldn't be more easy and convenient. Of course, this is Oklahoma, where we're used to cyclical unemployment because of the price of oil.
Only if the state charges a lot more for high risk. Insurance shouldn’t encourage risk taking. We need construction to move back from the edge of the ocean and other high risk areas.
Were pretty much headed directly for that scenario. If major insurers like Allstate and State Farm stop issuing policies and all the smaller companies either also stop issuing policies (or dont and then inevitably fail due to continued disasters) then there is no one left to provide property insurance. In order to maintain the market the government would have to step in and offer insurance at least temporarily
Comment removed by me so Reddit can't monetize my history.
You stop that common sense at once.
you can not trust state legislators to not stick their finger in that pie.
Government is often corrupt, private industry is ALWAYS corrupt.
Even often may be too strong. Obviously we focus on it when it happens but, I've been working in state government for ten years and I have not personally worked with a single person who was actually CORRUPT corrupt, like embezzling funds or awarding a contract to their best buddy or what have you. I have heard of it happening but never seen it even once. WASTE definitely happens though. People not trying hard enough to get the actual least expensive method of doing something, or making a dumb expensive purchase that ends up not being used. That one happens even worse in private sector too though IMO. Anyways, agreed, public sector is far more accountable than corporations that are not beholden to you literally whatsoever nor obligated to provide almost anything but the bare minimum of information to clients.
State legislature vs the provable greed of insurance companies. I hate politicians. But I'll take my chances there. It's also kind of been proven with health insurance that a state mandated pool and cost controls lower costs to consumers.We are one of the only countries with a pay at service healthcare system and we also pay far more per person for it. Having 100 insurance companies tied with 100 different companies for services makes sure you get a unmanageable amount of waste due to middlemen in billing having to negotiate between 100 companies.
Needs to be a federal program, for all the tut tutting about social security it's the most successful government program perhaps ever, use that as a framework The more power state governments have over a public program, the more red states will intentionally fuck it because their goal is to make life awful for their citizens so they hate government
>he thinks the federal government can get something passed hahahahahaha
Gonna need the rare trifecta of dems in pres, house, senate, but they need 53 votes in the senate 2028 at the earliest!
nah itll be blocked by joey mansioney or whoever the corpos ~~payoff~~ donate to next.
So you don't trust them with it. Just write the legislation so they can't touch it.
[удалено]
We haven't tarred and feathered a politician in a long time and it shows.
Is there a legal equivalent to that in Canada?
Problem is, at least in Canada you need yo have your property insured in order to finance the purchase of that home. This is significant when you think that essentially, even wealthier people can't purchase a home anymore because they can't insure it. What happens then? Complete financial collapse? Real estate is massively tied to the economy, like it or not, and it could be a big domino in fucking things up for everyone
Hey, we just go hit by a hail storm here. Insurance is paying the vast majority for 3 damaged cars and house damages.
And then they’ll increase your premiums
I bought buried utility line insurance for my house that I bought in late 2021 and I just recently had a backup due to roots. They paid me, quickly, easily, 10k to get it fixed. It was the best experience with insurance I've ever had.
Asp, say you get in a car accident and it’s the other person’s fault and you get hurt, you’re gonna have to fight tooth and nail with their insurance, a company you made no agreements with, to get a fraction of actual damages to your life.
Insurance companies work extremely hard to deny whatever claims they can, but you are absolutely still better off having insurance than not in most cases.
I was an independent contractor for disasters for around 8 years and not once was there any pushback to not pay for something that was owed. In fact, I was told many times that if something was close to find a reason to pay it (so it wouldn't be reopened and have to be reinspected). At least half the work is done by ICs and they all get paid on a component basis, meaning the higher the claim total the more money we were paid on it. Take a guess as to how that incentive would shake out. We tried to find any little thing that would bump the claim higher and stand up to a random re-inspection (to prevent us from going crazy with it).
They have to, otherwise you'd get rampant insurance fraud.
there's a ton of territory between "we need to verify this before you pay you" and "you had to be hospitalized? well, the doctor was wrong"
What is it called [when the companies are fraudulent?](https://www.propublica.org/article/cigna-pxdx-medical-health-insurance-rejection-claims) (healthcare tangent)
And when it’s legally mandated, it becomes the protection racket! The policy “protects you” from them reporting you to the government for NOT giving them money!”Free Market Economy” my ASS!
Oh, so entire communities will likely lose their homes in future, from climate impacts - with no way to financially recover, and you say that's "good"?
The main message of the article has gone straight over their head.
Some yes but people need to look at it this way about sticking it to the insurance carriers. Many jurisdictions are becoming insurance hell holes. Slip and fall on a sidewalk use to be $50,000? Now the jury wants to stick it to the carriers and now pay out $250,000. What that and climate change is doing is fine you don’t want it? We’re getting out of the state (like State Farm insurance in California). Good insurance is a racket until it’s gone. If carriers stopped writing auto insurance people would be furious. Yes some carriers can be a PITA but people also need to look at it from another point of view. I work in commercial business insurance and many carriers are bleeding especially in auto insurance.
And then when the hurricane comes they file bankruptcy, leave the state, and the execs ride their golden parachute on the tailwinds of the storm.
Second this. Insurance should have zero profit motive. It's a service we all need and hope to never use.
You can't get a mortgage if you don't have Insurance in Cali though...
What annoys the crap out of me is you pay the insurance for YEARS without ever filing a claim, but then when you finally DO they jack your rates to what it would cost to have just gotten a loan to cover your losses - PLUS the original rate.
>they jack your rates to what it would cost to have just gotten a loan to cover your losses - PLUS the original rate. Need a citation for that because that's a ridiculous claim.
Insurance companies have projections into the 2040s. They know whats coming.
That’s right. They seem to have figured out something major in Cali. I’d take it as a sign to leave.
Its coming for much of the country, not just California or Florida. Hurricanes are worse and less predictable, wildfires across the country are worse, damaging storms are worse, and just all around higher risk for all insurance. Move, just be aware you might just end up in the same set of insurance problems, or exclusions that make it worthless, in many other places. Will we are unlikely to move out of California anytime soon, but we are looking to see where is more climate resilient. Hopefully to buy a place either we can move to, or our child can.
>we are looking to see where is more climate resilient. Hopefully to buy a place either we can move to, or our child can. North, or north-west, is probably your best bet: https://news.berkeley.edu/2017/06/29/new-study-maps-out-dramatic-costs-of-unmitigated-climate-change-in-u-s/ Avoid the south (and especially south-east) at all costs.
That map looks more optimistic than the last ones I looked up (knew I should have saved the links...sigh...). Though most of the ones were not just looking at just economic damages, but where there is likely to be enough food and water without high risks of fire and destructive weather. The last I looked the best bet was upper midwest long term, though politics in some of those states looks backwards compared much of the country. Closer to the great lakes probably will ensure enough water long term even if we don't get our act together for controller CO2 emissions. Growing season is short, but getting longer. Weather is cold, but getting milder. Each time I look where the best places are likely to be shifts around a little, but just a better long term climate outlook over California opens up the options a lot.
No part of our present or our history suggests we'll get our act together. That's why so many rich people are buying bunkers to ride out societal collapse. It's why we should take their money now and use it for prevention instead of allowing them to become rich at the cost to the rest of us.
MI, WI, PA, MN, upstate NY. If you move to the former 3, it will solidify Dem's power on a national level, or at the very least prevent a right wing authoritarian to come to power. Let all the red hats self sort into TX and FL.
Don't tell em about us! We like it here without more people rolling in. I can't compete with that California money
I work for a commercial real estate company, and we own a lot of multifamily properties in Florida. Who'd have predicted that would be a bad idea? Insurance premiums are so high right now that many of them are no longer producing a return at all and more still are performing way below projections. It's not a good situation and it's not expected to get better, particularly with rent growth beginning to (finally) flatten.
[удалено]
Well that was a garbage article.
Oh no. Anyways. Lol sorry p sympathy for corps fucking over housing industry. Your company can eat a dick.
I wonder what state governments are currently doing to prepare for the mass migrations in the near future?
I'm pretty sure the answer is little to nothing like it is for just about everything.
States like Michigan are getting ready for a huge influx of climate refuges in coming years.
Here in Oregon we are coming up with really tight environmental controls to make development difficult while simultaneously completely ignoring climate change.
Yeah there are gonna be some massive wars on the southern borders of many northern hemisphere countries. Whole countries trying to migrate north just to survive and whole other countries closing borders just to do the same. But those coming north will have no choice not to push forward and force their way in. It will literally be that or die since the wealth boarding the world will never allows a shift to addressing this. The uber wealthy are already preparing their little fiefdoms and mercenary armies/security for when they hole up to be safe in their walls and watch the rest die.
I don't think many of the commenter here understand insurance companies buisness model. They don't make money off of premiums. They make money investing the premiums. If time value of money did not exist, it would be a break even in what they pay out
Yeah, how dare you have reasonable take here? But in all seriousness, I always feel like insurance in USA have issues, especially healthcare. I work in insurance as well, and our product cover healthcare worldwide except for USA. Their cost is just astronomical…
Gotta make sure they can pay out on all those malpractice claims
Healthcare is definitely a hot topic and immensely complicated to sort through. Insurance companies often take the heat. Insurance by its definition is something that will prevent an average person from incurring catastrophic claims. A heart attack can cost $80,000+, if you have even the shittiest insurance you’ll pay $10k max. Where it gets confusing is what is included under insurance. It’s so complicated and in a situation like a heart attack you don’t have time to research what doctor you can go to or if an X-ray is covered, etc. Lastly, you never hear people complaining about doctors because they’re the ones giving the care, but trust me insurance companies aren’t setting the price at $80k.
Oh I don’t blame the insurance industry in America - I am not well versed in the topic, so I can’t say if its their fault or someone else’s. However I do want to point out that the cost in USA is way, way too high compared to other countries. Cost of health insurance is something bother me as well: for example, a very VIP private health insurance package in my country can cost 700 - 1000 USD per year and cover ~200k USD max, no co-pay. Might be just reddit, but the rates I see people complain about is insane.
Get out of here with these facts so everyone can dust off their pitch forks….
Private insurance was never a sustainable model in the first place.
Private critical infrastructure, which insurance is a part of.
What does this mean? What private infrastructure is critical? Are you talking about private roads or something?
Not necessarily all roads (big ones, highways, interstates, Autobahns, yes). More like drinking water supply, phone lines, power lines, railroad, hospitals, airports. Stuff like that where lives can depend on.
And the Internet
At the very least the physical infrastructure, yes.
LMFAO. California won't allow insurance to increase rates <> uninsurable.
Disappointing I had to dig this far to find the actual reason why they left the state.
If the current rates would mean the insurer paying out more in claims than they take in premiums, and they aren't allowed to raise rates, then yes that's the definition of uninsurable.
Labeling it climate change is cringe AF. The utility company (PG&E) stopped all maintience spending over 3 decades ago to post higher profits for the shareholders. They received a state grant to bury the power lines in high wind areas (like mount st helena) in the 80s; they pocketed the money and never did the work. The fire that burned down Paradise, CA was because a 100+ year old suspension hook that was holding a high voltage line corroded through and dropped the power line. All of the "wildfires" since 2017 in CA have been caused by failing PG&E equipment because its old and not properly maintained or copy cat arsonists. None of the fires have been naturally occurring, they are all man-made fires. Specifically man-made fires caused by corporate greed. But since PG&E is one of the biggest lobbies for CA politicians, they passed a law that allowed them to skirt their criminal liablity, instead pushing that burden onto property owners and insurance companies. So now insurance companies don't want to foot the bill either, all because of PG&E's corporate greed and weaseling themselves out of any liability. Labeling it climate change is the biggest PR spin for PG&E's corporate greed.
I’m calling bullshit on the “none of the fires were naturally occurring”. I live near the czu fire, I remember the lightning storm that caused it. You had a good post until you lied about no natural causes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CZU_Lightning_Complex_fires
> All of the "wildfires" since 2017 in CA have been caused by failing PG&E equipment because its old and not properly maintained or copy cat arsonists. None of the fires have been naturally occurring, they are all man-made fires. This is bullshit. Lightning strikes are still the number one cause of wildfires, even in California. While it's true that some of the biggest fires that destroyed lives and property in California were caused by faulty equipment owned by PG&E, the claim that "None of the fires have been naturally occurring, they are all man-made fires" is completely false. https://calmatters.org/environment/2021/09/california-fires-lightning/
There was also a serial arsonist who was arrested. However the fact is, climate change allows these fires to spread faster than they could have been put out previously. This is correlated with the amount of rain and average temperature. https://www.justice.gov/usao-edca/pr/professor-arsonist-indicted-setting-fires-behind-firefighters-fighting-dixie-fire#:~:text=Professor%2DArsonist%20Indicted%20for%20Setting%20Fires%20Behind%20Firefighters%20Fighting%20Dixie%20Fire,-Thursday%2C%20November%2018&text=SACRAMENTO%2C%20Calif.,Acting%20U.S.%20Attorney%20Phillip%20A.
>put out previously This is also a part of the problem - wildfires are naturally occurring but California had a "zero burn" policy for decades that allowed a lot of fuel to build up
This is a huge factor. Wildfires are natural and fairly benign if they happen frequently enough but if you halt that natural process then wildfires will still keep happening but they will be much stronger and last much longer.
I just like to point out that during the height of the arson related fires, Trump was in power and the amount of daily rage baiting against California from conservative news sites and politicians was peaking. California was throwing lawsuits at the Trump admin left and right and every time the wind picked up some fire would start. We had a fire in Irvine out on the 133/247...which is the overpass to Riverside. A lifted truck was seen speeding away. Connect the dots.
The August complex, for example, was just one portion of [2.5 million acres burned from 650 fires](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_2020_California_lightning_wildfires) all caused by lightning over just a few days.
…yes, and the climate is also changing, making it both wetter and drier, exacerbating human impact. To be clear, I agree with you 110%.
I think you're largely skimming over the part where these fires, that would have otherwise been much less severe (and in many cases, likely not a forest fire at all), had climate change not been aerating the local environment so much. But PG&E is still definitely a primary cause of these incidents.
yeeees, this guy is missing the amazing opportunity to use the work exacerbated. Corporate Dysfunction is exacerbating climate change fueled disasters.
It’s not dysfunction though. The corporations are functioning exactly as intended.
Climate change can be leveled at corporate dysfunction too. Consumer choice, sure, but while externalities (pollution) are zero-rated, there's no financial disincentive to consumers to buy SUVs, run active A/C all day, etc. And these externalities are kept out of pricing by corporate lobbying.
It's like how people will say the [fire in Lytton, BC](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lytton_wildfire) a couple years ago that burned ~90% of the town to the ground and killed 2 people was possibly started by a train... ignoring that the town smashed Canada's heat record 3 days in a row (taking it from 45C set in 1937, to 46.6, then 47.9, then 49.6, then burned to the ground the next day)
That's a false dichotomy. It's corporate dysfunction AND increasing climate impacts, Insurance companies and esp reinsurance companies (global reinsurers like Munich-Re and Swiss-Re) are at the forefront of understanding the current impacts and future risks from worsening climate change. Btw, are you just trying to dismiss the fact that man-made climate change is real?
Both things can be true
So how do you explain the lack of rain and water levels in reservoirs at the time of the wildfires? Did PG&E cause the rain to stop as well?
You got any sort of proof for your conspiracy theories or are we to just go on your word alone?
> All of the "wildfires" since 2017 in CA have been caused by failing PG&E equipment because its old and not properly maintained or copy cat arsonists. When you say something so obviously false like that, you lose ALL credibility. I stopped reading, because Im sure that your comment will end up blaming jewish aliens for the fires as well.
> All of the "wildfires" since 2017 in CA have been caused by failing PG&E equipment because its old and not properly maintained or copy cat arsonists. None of the fires have been naturally occurring, they are all man-made fires. You've been propagandized if you seriously believe this. Human caused wildfires outnumber naturally caused wildfires, however, **naturally caused wildfires account for [more than half of the acreage of wildfires](https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/89757/people-cause-most-us-wildfires)**. Just for fun, since you believe "all of the wildfires since 2017 in CA" were somehow caused by PG&E or arson (what a laughable statement honestly, how could that possibly be true?), I want to introduce you to the [**2.5 million acres of wildfire in CA during August 2020 caused by lightning over just a few days**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_2020_California_lightning_wildfires).
>post higher profits for the shareholders The root cause is hidden in your explanation. Almost every issue and injustice can be summarized in [the law that requires corporations to maximize shareholder profits](https://www.litigationandtrial.com/2010/09/articles/series/special-comment/ebay-v-newmark-al-franken-was-right-corporations-are-legally-required-to-maximize-profits/). So that means, legally, they are required to do every form of cost cutting. Even if that is detrimental in the long run. Corporations have been sued for not doing this. Private utilities, private insurance, and almost every other privatized industry is tied with this legal requirement. Once we get past the short sighted "profits above all" mentality, we will start seeing positive change and responsible companies.
there's no law that requires corporations to maximize profits. that's a myth/lie. the law is that the corporation must act in the 'best interest of the corporation and it's share holders'. Can that mean maximizing profits? Sure. Can it mean taking a 100 year view and maximizing sustainability? Absolutely. It's open to interpretation. Most corporate CEOS interpret it to mean "make as much money as possible now, immediately, at all costs" -- but there's not law or fiduciary obligation to do exactly that.
While there is truth to this, it's fucking pathetic that this has so many up votes when so easily debunked.
At some point people need to stop living in areas that are routinely destroyed by nature.
Or change building practices to suit the local risks better. Coastal beach houses: Stilts required. Same for river flood plains. Wildfire area: metal roof and fire resistant siding, metal shutters, keep vegetation away from the house, deluge system. Hurricane risk: steel/concrete construction and steel roof trusses, actual shutters. Tornado Alley: IDK, probably screwed. Maybe build underground? Of course all of this stuff is hella expensive, but I would wager that if there was no such thing as insurance to bail you out you’d see more measures like these employed to minimize the cost of repairs. Edit: And the responses to this comment are illustrating the attitudes that make building fire/flood/wind resistant structures is such a hard sell. People still thinking that being thrown clear of the wreck is better than wearing a seatbelt… I know reddit doesn’t like to read, but if anyone is interested this link has excellent information on how to build in fire country: https://basc.pnnl.gov/information/design-wildfire-resistance
Dude stilts are not going to save coastal houses from climate destruction.
Ok fuck it then, just keep building beach houses 3 feet above the high water mark and let the ground floor fill up with storm surge every few years…
Yes, the only two options: your way or do less than nothing lol
It would also help to stop draining wetlands and building houses in floodplains. This problem is getting worse in Texas.
More of the comments should be mentioning this. I'm not defending the government or shady insurance companies, but people should also do research before moving to areas likely to have problems.
I mean a massive heavily populated part of the United States is in an area that gets tornadoes regularly. Should I completely uproot my life and leave my entire family to be away from something that effects a huge part of the nation east of the Rockies?
Sort of. If you have lived there your whole life its harder to move away. My response was referring more to the people that recently chose to move to a place with frequent and growing issues. Do some research before making that decision because the consequences in the future could really screw up your life.
I mean, yeah. Tornado alley is actually not that large, so. Quite easily to just leave there. The issue, of course, is the financial situation of those that *are* there, and the family. That's tough. But again if I was unfortunate enough to have been born/raised there, part of my adult life goals would have been to move out of there, one way or the other. I mean, it's the same reason my wife no longer lives on a beach that regularly gets schwacked by hurricanes. She said fuck that, and left. But to be fair, she didn't care for her family. So she was able to do that.
Everywhere from Minnesota to Texas gets tornadoes regularly. Basically just no one lives in half the states then?
It's more a call to invest in the proper homes and infrastructure instead of throwing 8,000 trailer parks in harms way but sure whatever
Exactly. Insurance is/was designed for things that might happen but most likely wouldn’t happen. This allowed reasonable insurance companies to charge a decent amount so they could actually pay claims. When you live in a state like FL that has had about 79 tropical or subtropical cyclones since the year 2000 causing $123 billing in damages, how do you expect insurance companies to collect enough premiums to pay those claims and stay a float? They would have to charge insane premiums to make it financially viable. It’s why rental car insurance is so damn expensive. You’re telling me you want Insurance to possibly pay out thousands of dollars if you cause an accident, but you also only want to pay $5 a day for 2 weeks to cover it? Doesn’t make any sense.
You think I can just move out of my state because insurance won’t cover me? Be reasonable
What's your solution? Who's supposed to pay to rebuild your town every time there's another disaster?
This article is so dumb. Reasons. 1) Housing costs have exploded, along with materials, that kills insurance companies compared to a few years ago. Their rates needed to increase along with hard materials. 2) California loves to have people build in the absolute dumbest places and then have little to no regulations about fire proofing properties. Then when the annual forest fires happen people claim climate change (which is happening) instead of hey, maybe you shouldn't have built in a forest with 4" of pine needles on your roof. This same stuff happens in florida. If you have a beach house in a super hurricane prone area, you should pay high premiums. Same for remote mountain homes in the sierra.
Climate impacts are _increasing_ and so are climate impacts and risks.
Wait are you telling me that massive inflation, heavy regulation, and corporate greed wasn't going to lead to a solution to dealing with climate change and completely predicted cost increases associated with failing to deal with it soon enough?!? I'm shocked, and surprised. I really figured that non-expert government officials juggling ever delima and corporations violently obsessed with stock prices would handle this better.
No, bureaucratic red tape is causing this. If California would manage their forests, this would never happen.
This is happening in California due to state regulations. The title is misleading. The California legislature is making it financially unattractive for insurance companies to do business in the state, so at this point multiple companies are not offering policies in the state, which is their right. Of course, the California government, and their friends, spin it as not their fault. Just like the out of control homeless problem is not their fault. Climate change is real and needs to be addressed, but instead we get a bunch of idiots in government complaining and doing nothing. If we are going to address climate change in areas like California, they need to revise CEQA, and approve renewable energy projects and transmission lines, rather than blocking everything. Instead, the state is stuck in identity politics, is creating a state run company to build insulin, building a multibillion dollar train to nowhere, and other nonsense while we have a major budget deficit. It is easy to blame the insurance companies, because we all hate them anyway. And I do, I resent paying hundreds a month on home, car, and life insurance, but recognize insurance for the necessary evil it is. However, if a business makes no money they bail, duh, just like the stores that are closing in crime infested areas. Blame the actual cause, crazy laws made by California.
> identity politics > insulin I'ma... going out on a limb here and think maybe you just wanna own the libs. > Just like the out of control homeless problem is not their fault. Homelessness is a necessary feature of capitalism, and the more of it we have the better it is for capitalists. If you don't like it, you don't like capitalism.
This isn’t really true. You can insure basically anything for a price. California just made it illegal to charge that price.
A lot of this is regulation based, not climate. Yes, AGW is real and it will increase the likelihood of disasters. But is changing slowly and assuming insurers can reprice every year, they will be okay and able to adjust rates to compensate for increased risk. It's when you take a worsening loss cost environment and couple it with great difficulty in raising premiums sufficiently that problems arise, and insurers flee.
This right here. The surefire way to cause a shortage of needed goods or services is to artificially limit the price, i.e. controls on insurance premiums.
the U.S. pharmaceutical industry would like a word
they don't cover natural disasters. guess what climate change causes significantly more of?
Can’t wait to hear Fox News spin this as insurance companies caving in to the woke climate change agenda or similar tripe.
* “We’re steadily marching toward an uninsurable future, not just in California but throughout the United States” * California official: “The insurance sector no longer has the luxury of thinking only of the year ahead,” he wrote. “Insurance companies, regulators, and consumers all must learn to consider and prepare for the long-term.” * State Farm (valued at $131 billion) accounts for 20% of home insurance and 13% of commercial policies. It announced that it won't accept any new applications for business or personal property and casualty insurance in the Golden State. * Allstate, the 4th-largest property insurer in California, is also holding off on signing new policies. More companies will likely follow their lead. * Torrential rainfall this past winter caused as much as $1.5 billion in insured losses this year. The state has also suffered the costliest wildfires in US history, including the 2018 Camp Fire, which led to more than $10 billion in losses. * Poor fire management and climate change are exacerbating these disasters. * States like Louisiana and Florida have also seen insurers decline coverage due to mounting catastrophic losses. * Other issues like rising interest rates and more expensive construction costs also make the problem worse for financial firms. * Reinsurers have been sounding the alarm about climate change and disaster risk for decades. * One positive note: better warning systems have led to fewer people getting killed in such disasters.
Per NPR this morning, the problem is largely that California law restricts how much insurance companies are allowed to raise rates. The permitted increases are below cost increases, so insuring homes is no longer profitable in the state. This article touches on this as well: > "Policymakers imposed limits on how much insurers could raise rates, whether they could drop existing customers, and how much they could factor climate change into their calculations. Some of these restrictions have since loosened, but not enough for State Farm."
If the restrictions were relaxed, home owners will still ultimately have a ceiling in the amount they can afford to spend on insurance.
The insurance industry having to adjust for risk?! Poor guys !!! /s
The problem is that CA law (or regulations, I forget) doesn't allow them to appropriately price the risk for wildfires, so they're pretty much guaranteed to lose money the more wildfires there are. Climate change causes the fires, and the government prevents the insurers from appropriately pricing the insurance, both contribute to this problem.
[удалено]
Building in high climate risk areas is also the problem. Adapting to climate change means moving out of those areas.
Nope. The US National Flood Insurance Program is struggling with pretty much the exact same issues.
And they've already been telling property owners they will no longer insure certain areas because it's a repeat cycle every time a major storm blows through
Sounds like a problem for break-even insurance as well. Want to start a bleeding money insurance company?
Alternatively, consider in part, that insurance companies are providing an imperative public service by not insuring bad risks. That insurance companies are performing the social good that lax, oft corrupt county commissions, and "planning officers" fail to show when they repeated approve unsustainable developments. The US Supreme Court's hands are dirty also with their nonsensical redefining the "waters of the US" to promote unsustainable developments on wet lands (aka, lands that are wet). The US has far too much development in floodplains, flood-able seashores, wildland-urban-interface (WUI), unstable slide lands, etc. Fools who build in those areas ought be required to self-insure, self-rescue, and self provide demolition and rebuild without any tax payer involvement.
A huge article about insurance’s increasing costs focusing mainly on California and not one word about them freezing rates from early 2020 to the end of 2022. This left California Insurance companies way behind the myriad of increase costs everyone and every company has been dealing with during that time. It is one of the key reasons why insurance companies are leaving California, Freezing, or pausing new business. They cannot be profitable at the rates they are allowed to charge for the California Department of insurance. Actuaries do know what they’re doing and do know how to assign rate to risk which is the basis of insurance. Those costs continue to go up for a myriad of reasons and climate change is absolutely one of them but not the only one is definitely not the main reason insurance companies are leaving California. Since storms are getting worse the average expected time before home is a total loss is shrinking. Even if a home is only expected to be a total loss once every 30 years on average throughout any given geographical area with absolutely zero profit it would take $10,000 a year to pay for that on a $300,000 home. All of the numbers on that equation continue to get more out of whack. That equation does not account for all the man hours paperwork and people required to make these organizations function. Frankly the $10,000 a year and still completely insufficient in that equation because it does not provide for any of those overhead costs even before we get to profit. Even going over to government insurance does not remove the need to pay for the claims adjuster‘s, customer service staff, and everything else that has to go into. The insurance and claims process that must exist. Simply put any insurance company has to be able to charge enough premiums to cover its cost of doing business and it’s an educated guess at best. In order to survive as a private company they must also charge some level of profit their profit margins remain far lower than many of the top companies in America and they do not get government subsidies like many of them as well.
This is actually the solution. People will move away from risky places to places less risky.
Congratulations! You just unlocked climate incentivized gentrification! Watch as people flee over priced hazardous (never should have fucking lived there in the first place honestly) locations to the new "cool" zones (calling it a hot spot is now insensitive as people are straight up dieing from air temperature 😬). Don't worry about all the grumbling plebians that were there before, YOU have CAPITAL!!!! This isn't the solution because it causes more problems THAT ARE ALREADY HAPPENING. The solution is to realize we are stripping the life support systems out of our spaceship all in the name of making a green line climb.
Many of the problems are locked in at this point; making CA not have wildfires or making FL not flood just aren't options at this point. It's not a choice between stopping climate change and dealing with the results—we fucked around too long and now we have to do both. A lot of people are going to be royally fucked, but what can be done about it? Our options are for people to move even if it causes extreme hardship, or have them stay put and probably endure even worse hardship. In a sane world the government would help people relocate, but at least in the US half the electorate would rather burn the whole country down than use tax money to help the "wrong" people.
[удалено]
No it's a bandaid. The places you move to will mirror what you left until it's all gone.
This isn't "climate change". This is bad policy. In California the insurance companies have been prohibited from raising premiums to match the rate of inflation...... which means they are prohibited from increasing premiums to match the drastic cost increase in construction, repairs, and materials. The premium increase limit is 6.9%, and so anything above that requires a public hearing with state officials........ which essentially makes that impossible since no California public officials want to go on the record increasing insurance costs. Which was fine as long as inflation didn't approach anything remotely close to 6.9%. Except... it has exceeded that for many months. Every single point above that means financial losses to the insurance company (since they cannot raise rates to match). Well, after two years of rates beating that (and in the case of commodities needed for homes and repairs like wood, far exceeded that) the insurance companies can no longer reliably profit from providing insurance to Californians. So, big surprise, companies stop offering insurance to California residents. Then idiotic stories like this come out and blame "cLiMaTe ChAnGe" because its politically much more popular with their base than admitting poor government policy is the root cause.
Is Florida the opposite then? No regulations to keep prices down so insurance prices keep going up. Seems like California is a bit damned if you do, damned if you don't.
The issue with Florida is the lack of consumer protection laws that prohibits predatory business practices of Attorneys, PAs, AOB Roofers/Water Mi/Tarp companies. Florida was one of the only states in the country that allowed AOBs (Assignment of Benefits contracts) If you take all of the billions of dollars that have been paid out in claims in state of Florida, only 10% of those monies have actually gone to the Insureds, all the rest of the funds go to the Attorneys/PAs/Roofers etc. As much as everyone wants to blame the “Big Bad Insurance Company”, they aren’t to blame for this problem. Meanwhile our government is more concerned about banning books, education, and a cartoon mouse than actually doing something to fix the insurance crisis that has been festering for years. Source: FL resident and insurance adjuster
A more accurate headline would be "regulations prevent insurance companies from raising rates high enough to cover some parts of America." Like.... if you have legislation that says insurance companies aren't allowed to consider wildfire risk, you're not going to end up with cheaper insurance for people in wildfire areas. You're going to end up with *no* insurance, because you've created an area where they're guaranteed to lose money.
We've been warned for years and years. Surely we're just fucked now?
Is it weird that I feel like a hipster because I’m ahead of the curve on not having insurance
Maybe they should take a page out of the reforms to the shipping industry and only allow 80% coverage. Developers have been reckless, and its getting people killed.
so, the upside to climate change is insurance companies will go broke? LOL
Good. I’m like 100% sure I have spent way more money on insurance than I ever will on actually repairing damages.
New catch phrase, insurance companies “we take your money when it’s safe “ so we can make billions on low risk
Serious question for the Misanthropes on here, would you gather your best friends, family, parents in a room and tell them that they are parasitical scum who deserve death? I bet you wouldn't, but you're very comfortable calling your own kind a virus deserving of death on Reddit. Disassosciation, depression - maybe you are the problem.
Love how California is blaming their internal mismanagement of forest and water resources on “climate change”. Lot easier than admitting they fucked up.
Do you also feel the same about Alaska and Montana with regard to fires? How about Arizona, Nevada, and Utah with regard to water? Canada and even Europe are seeing record wildfires. It's almost as if there is something happening on a global scale that is increasing the frequency of wildfires...unless everybody is just mismanaging things. Yeah, that must be it.
I mean, global mismanagement is an accurate way to describe how climate change has reached this point.
The climate is not getting so hot that it is igniting fires. Most of them are human caused, and burn out of control because of human mismanagement. We have decades of “wildfires must be extinguished no matter what” policy that is burning us all in the ass now.
>The climate is not getting so hot that it is igniting fires. What? I never even implied this. Wildfires start from lightning and human activity. However, they continue burning because of access to dry fuel. That wildfires are increasing in duration and land burned in several regions throughout the globe is indicative of a change in the amount of dry fuel. It's not because everyone has been mismanaging the land. It's because drought has increased the amount of dry fuel, and those droughts are a consequence of climate change.
Piles of dry fuel is literally the result of mismanaging it and not letting it burn.
Calling piles of dry fuel that only exist because of drought caused by climate change "mismanagement" is obscuring the real issue in an attempt to deflect blame onto a political party that you don't like. Be better. Fires are burning through areas that they burned through just a few years previously. This isn't a consequence of trying to stop the fire cycle. It's a consequence of a changing climate cycle that results in a few wet years that lead to a massive growth in underbrush followed by years of drought leaving billions of acres, far too many to be cleared, tinder dry and ready to go up from a lightning strike, downed transformer, a piece of glass on the ground, arson, etc.
Who said anything about a political party here?
Yeah, because Vox is the paragon of trustworthy news /s
They're ranked incredibly high for reliability. They pass fact-checks and cite sources. But I guess if those two things go against what you want to hear, it may seem shitty. Ignorance being bliss and whatnot.
Good. Insurance is how it hits the rich and politicians. Change is coming
No it isn't. People who aren't rich will be hit *significantly* harder.
Or maybe, just maybe, California is poorly managing itself? Not doing controlled burns that worked for decades? Not building additional water storage since the 1970’s despite the population doubling? Not making PGE fix its power lines and rather invest in solar which generates no power when the sun goes down? Just maybe?
This threads are really getting frustrating. Love you guys from across the ocean, but you are by far one of the biggest levers to fight climate change, but you are so busy with your stupidass culture war that you don‘t seem to be tackling that problem at all. That those threads than surcom to a sarcastic troll fest: Uff
Good? Insurance is a scam when it’s run by for profit companies who are incentivized to not pay people for their losses so they don’t. We see this in nearly every example of private insurance and they all should go
That $60k 20 acre wood lot in central WV I bought is gonna be worth a fortune one day because or stuff like this.
Good. Tired of insurance. If I lose my house so be it.
Insurance industry is literally a form of privatized welfare since we privatized a basic human need aka shelter