5 ms·

I'd argue that flood insurance isn't necessarily the same thing, at least in some cases. I live in an area with three rivers and lots of creeks and runs that f

by bmj 11y ago

I'd argue that flood insurance isn't necessarily the same thing, at least in some cases. I live in an area with three rivers and lots of creeks and runs that feed those rivers. It isn't always "natural" for the sections of the river, or those creeks to flood. It takes a lot of rain, in some cases "act of God" levels. Flood insurance seems pretty reasonable in those cases, particularly since in many cases, there isn't a ton of flood preventation infrastructure that has been built with tax money.

electricblue 11y ago
in most cases we're talking about people who build their houses in category 1 storm surge / 10 year flood zones and then expect a subsidy when inevitably natures does what it does.
cma 11y ago
He's talking about federal flood insurance subsidies. Which do things like subsidize multi-million-dollar-beach-front-house flood insurance.
ajross 11y ago
> It isn't always "natural" for the [...] the river [...] to flood. It takes a lot of rain, in some cases "act of God" levels. That's a weird definition for "natural" you're using. I think you mean something more like "typical". Unless you're making a theological point, an "act of God" is quite literally as natural (in the sense of un-artificial) as you can get. But the grandparent's point was economic. Disaster insurance can't work: the whole idea behind insurance is that "bad stuff" happens rarely to some people, so everyone pools money together to pay for the few who actually needed. Disasters happen broadly, and to everyone who needs it in the affected area. A "correct" insurance scheme there would be tantamount to everyone having to just save money on their own, there's no efficiency. And of course in practice the insurance companies cheat and don't save enough, so people don't actually get paid.
- kbenson 11y ago
  > And of course in practice the insurance companies cheat and don't save enough, so people don't actually get paid. Or changing conditions throw off their actuarial tables, making the company insolvent when reality intercedes. Those changes could be as obvious (at this stage) as climate change, or as subtle as a long-standing practice of preventing forest fires, which while seemingly preventing property loss to fire is actually creating an unstable system which has the capability for much larger destruction than the typical fire.
- roymurdock 11y ago
  "Act of God" is common legal terminology for a very rare event outside of human control for which no party to an agreement can be held accountable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_God https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_God
  - acveilleux 11y ago
    While this is true. It does not mean that they are not "normal." They are just so rare as to allow a party to get out of a contract. As a society, we cannot ignore the cost of the "Act of God" level disasters when summing up the cost of said disaster. If an insurance companies might be able to avoid paying out on a claim doesn't mean property (or lives) did not get lost.
    - roymurdock 11y ago
      Just wanted to give some color to BMJ's comment for most people who would not be familiar with the legal boilerplate, as his comment was interpreted as theological by some. In my mind the issue is pretty simple: if you buy a house in a wild-fire prone area, you should expect a wildfire at some point. Whether or not you want to prepare by a) purchasing insurance or b) wild-fire proofing your house is your prerogative. If you're not willing to take/mitigate the risk, then live somewhere else.
  - ajross 11y ago
    True, but not really relevant. I mean, that article literally (!) calls out flood insurance as a situation where such "acts" are subject to the contract.
kjs3 11y ago
It's exactly the same thing. Flood insurance enables people to build houses in places where there are going to be floods, just like fire insurance enables people to build in tinderboxes. Which would be fine if the person who buys the house there carried a financial burden proportional to the risk. there isn't a ton of flood preventation infrastructure that has been built with tax money. All flood prevention infrastructure outside of the dirt berm at the local pond was built with tax money. Been to, say, New Orleans recently?

by bmj 11y ago

electricblue 11y ago

in most cases we're talking about people who build their houses in category 1 storm surge / 10 year flood zones and then expect a subsidy when inevitably natures does what it does.

cma 11y ago

He's talking about federal flood insurance subsidies. Which do things like subsidize multi-million-dollar-beach-front-house flood insurance.

ajross 11y ago

> It isn't always "natural" for the [...] the river [...] to flood. It takes a lot of rain, in some cases "act of God" levels. That's a weird definition for "natural" you're using. I think you mean something more like "typical". Unless you're making a theological point, an "act of God" is quite literally as natural (in the sense of un-artificial) as you can get. But the grandparent's point was economic. Disaster insurance can't work: the whole idea behind insurance is that "bad stuff" happens rarely to some people, so everyone pools money together to pay for the few who actually needed. Disasters happen broadly, and to everyone who needs it in the affected area. A "correct" insurance scheme there would be tantamount to everyone having to just save money on their own, there's no efficiency. And of course in practice the insurance companies cheat and don't save enough, so people don't actually get paid.

kbenson 11y ago
> And of course in practice the insurance companies cheat and don't save enough, so people don't actually get paid. Or changing conditions throw off their actuarial tables, making the company insolvent when reality intercedes. Those changes could be as obvious (at this stage) as climate change, or as subtle as a long-standing practice of preventing forest fires, which while seemingly preventing property loss to fire is actually creating an unstable system which has the capability for much larger destruction than the typical fire.
roymurdock 11y ago
"Act of God" is common legal terminology for a very rare event outside of human control for which no party to an agreement can be held accountable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_God https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_God
- acveilleux 11y ago
  While this is true. It does not mean that they are not "normal." They are just so rare as to allow a party to get out of a contract. As a society, we cannot ignore the cost of the "Act of God" level disasters when summing up the cost of said disaster. If an insurance companies might be able to avoid paying out on a claim doesn't mean property (or lives) did not get lost.
  - roymurdock 11y ago
    Just wanted to give some color to BMJ's comment for most people who would not be familiar with the legal boilerplate, as his comment was interpreted as theological by some. In my mind the issue is pretty simple: if you buy a house in a wild-fire prone area, you should expect a wildfire at some point. Whether or not you want to prepare by a) purchasing insurance or b) wild-fire proofing your house is your prerogative. If you're not willing to take/mitigate the risk, then live somewhere else.
- ajross 11y ago
  True, but not really relevant. I mean, that article literally (!) calls out flood insurance as a situation where such "acts" are subject to the contract.

kjs3 11y ago

It's exactly the same thing. Flood insurance enables people to build houses in places where there are going to be floods, just like fire insurance enables people to build in tinderboxes. Which would be fine if the person who buys the house there carried a financial burden proportional to the risk. there isn't a ton of flood preventation infrastructure that has been built with tax money. All flood prevention infrastructure outside of the dirt berm at the local pond was built with tax money. Been to, say, New Orleans recently?