3 ms·

This is an unhelpful and tone-deaf response. I don't think anyone is "surprised" that companies act in their own self-interest. If they are surprised by anythin

by uoaei 3y ago

This is an unhelpful and tone-deaf response. I don't think anyone is "surprised" that companies act in their own self-interest. If they are surprised by anything, it's that the system that made mandatory the concept of insurance for a dignified, modern life (what we name in shorthand as "the economy") continues to allow for rug-pulling of this magnitude which obviously results in net-negative outcomes for society as a whole.

whalesalad 3y ago
When the world is rapidly changing what do you expect to happen? Systems collapse. It’s inevitable.
- uoaei 3y ago
  What is your angle exactly? It's hard to understand the underpinnings of your perspective here. Systems do sometimes collapse, but I would prefer to look at it as "we are smart enough to study these systems and act in the social best interest when failure is imminent or has already happened, and responsible enough to work to improve the society that makes our lives possible."
  - whalesalad 3y ago
    The world is physically changing. Weather patterns are shifting. Hot is getting hotter. Wet is getting wetter. Wildfires are becoming larger, more prevalent and more destructive. Sea levels are rising. Ocean temperatures are rising. Parts of the world are becoming inhospitable for human life. We can try as we might to terraform and engineer against it but Mother Nature will win. At some point as an insurance company or even whole industry needs to look at the data and assess whether the juice is worth the squeeze. These companies - despite marketing materials - don’t care about fixing your home. They are only interested in risk versus reward. When the operating environment becomes too risky you either raise prices astronomically (this is happening) or you pull out entirely because your customer base simply can’t afford it (this is also happening). Regarding the stance that we are smart enough to outsmart these problems - I agree but also disagree. What do you do when all signs are pointing to no and the cost of potential solutions far outweighs any benefits? You cut your losses and move.
    - uoaei 3y ago
      All the facts you state about the environment are true. But it makes zero sense IMO to make this an individual decision governed by the whims of the market and replicated anew across every single person. That is a purely reactive stance and, being humans, we can do better than that. We are smart enough to be proactive about these sorts of things, and considering we already have such an apparatus called "the state" to use to our benefit, we can provide assistance to people to reinforce their homes or move when necessary (in a rote economic sense, to keep them net-positive productive, in the utilitarian sense; in a humanistically compassionate sense, to keep them dignified) instead of trying to guide systemic patterns of behavior by punishing individuals for making impossibly complex choices regarding where they chose to and already do live.
      - sokoloff 3y ago
        If enough insurance companies decide to stop doing business in Florida, Florida is welcome to create a state-run insurance company to serve its residents. That's literally the apparatus of the state (in both senses of the word) used to the benefit of the residents. That may just have the effect of moving the problem from "my insurance premiums are too high" to "my taxes are too high", because at the end of the day, someone has to be paid to fade the risks inherent in insuring the property against perils.
        AaronM 3y ago
        Florida already has a state run insurance company for this exact reason https://www.citizensfla.com/who-we-are https://www.citizensfla.com/who-we-are
        seanharper 3y ago
        In Florida Citizens is the largest homeowners insurance company and it competes vigorously with the private market. The issue with Citizens is that it does create a lot of financial risk for the state, especially since it doesn't buy as much reinsurance as a private company would.
Analemma_ 3y ago
> it's that the system that made mandatory the concept of insurance for a dignified, modern life You're talking like this is some kind of conspiracy theory, when there's not really any other way it could work. Banks will not give you a mortgage without home insurance, because then it would be an unsecured loan against an asset which would be worthless, with them eating the loss, if the house was destroyed. That's not sinister: nobody wants to loan against an ephemeral asset. And car insurance is mandatory because if you hit somebody, causing a million dollars of lifetime medical bills, and you don't have insurance, you've just fucked their life over with no possible recourse.
- uoaei 3y ago
  Assuming the structure of the current economic system follows some kind of inevitable (natural?) law is part of why you are unable to reason beyond the logic of the markets we contend with today. Markets have taken many different forms, have been entrusted with different sets of responsibilities to different degrees, over the course of economic history. Perhaps it makes more sense now to develop a fiscal institution to run insurance than to continue to rely on a market-based solution.
  - pseg134 3y ago
    Well since your are the one proposing changes, what makes you think that a “fiscal institution” (whatever that is) would be more effective than the current market based solution. Don’t mention your feelings for extra credit.
  - whalesalad 3y ago
    Nothing in life is free. There must be balance. Regardless of whether an insurance company is public or private these bedrock issues of “can we remain in the black?” will remain. A “fiscal institution” that is losing money on claims will fail. Plain and simple.
    - uoaei 3y ago
      Accounting is different when you're a government that issues its own currency. There is no such thing as losing "money" when such conditions exist. I didn't recognize the difference between fiscal and monetary policy until I appreciated this fact -- maybe it will help you too. The perspective then changes to losing domestic economic activity, which would surely occur if lives are ruined because their assets are destroyed before preparations have been made or eventualities prevented.

by uoaei 3y ago

whalesalad 3y ago

When the world is rapidly changing what do you expect to happen? Systems collapse. It’s inevitable.

uoaei 3y ago
What is your angle exactly? It's hard to understand the underpinnings of your perspective here. Systems do sometimes collapse, but I would prefer to look at it as "we are smart enough to study these systems and act in the social best interest when failure is imminent or has already happened, and responsible enough to work to improve the society that makes our lives possible."
- whalesalad 3y ago
  The world is physically changing. Weather patterns are shifting. Hot is getting hotter. Wet is getting wetter. Wildfires are becoming larger, more prevalent and more destructive. Sea levels are rising. Ocean temperatures are rising. Parts of the world are becoming inhospitable for human life. We can try as we might to terraform and engineer against it but Mother Nature will win. At some point as an insurance company or even whole industry needs to look at the data and assess whether the juice is worth the squeeze. These companies - despite marketing materials - don’t care about fixing your home. They are only interested in risk versus reward. When the operating environment becomes too risky you either raise prices astronomically (this is happening) or you pull out entirely because your customer base simply can’t afford it (this is also happening). Regarding the stance that we are smart enough to outsmart these problems - I agree but also disagree. What do you do when all signs are pointing to no and the cost of potential solutions far outweighs any benefits? You cut your losses and move.
  - uoaei 3y ago
    All the facts you state about the environment are true. But it makes zero sense IMO to make this an individual decision governed by the whims of the market and replicated anew across every single person. That is a purely reactive stance and, being humans, we can do better than that. We are smart enough to be proactive about these sorts of things, and considering we already have such an apparatus called "the state" to use to our benefit, we can provide assistance to people to reinforce their homes or move when necessary (in a rote economic sense, to keep them net-positive productive, in the utilitarian sense; in a humanistically compassionate sense, to keep them dignified) instead of trying to guide systemic patterns of behavior by punishing individuals for making impossibly complex choices regarding where they chose to and already do live.
    - sokoloff 3y ago
      If enough insurance companies decide to stop doing business in Florida, Florida is welcome to create a state-run insurance company to serve its residents. That's literally the apparatus of the state (in both senses of the word) used to the benefit of the residents. That may just have the effect of moving the problem from "my insurance premiums are too high" to "my taxes are too high", because at the end of the day, someone has to be paid to fade the risks inherent in insuring the property against perils.
      - AaronM 3y ago
        Florida already has a state run insurance company for this exact reason https://www.citizensfla.com/who-we-are https://www.citizensfla.com/who-we-are
        seanharper 3y ago
        In Florida Citizens is the largest homeowners insurance company and it competes vigorously with the private market. The issue with Citizens is that it does create a lot of financial risk for the state, especially since it doesn't buy as much reinsurance as a private company would.

Analemma_ 3y ago

> it's that the system that made mandatory the concept of insurance for a dignified, modern life You're talking like this is some kind of conspiracy theory, when there's not really any other way it could work. Banks will not give you a mortgage without home insurance, because then it would be an unsecured loan against an asset which would be worthless, with them eating the loss, if the house was destroyed. That's not sinister: nobody wants to loan against an ephemeral asset. And car insurance is mandatory because if you hit somebody, causing a million dollars of lifetime medical bills, and you don't have insurance, you've just fucked their life over with no possible recourse.

uoaei 3y ago
Assuming the structure of the current economic system follows some kind of inevitable (natural?) law is part of why you are unable to reason beyond the logic of the markets we contend with today. Markets have taken many different forms, have been entrusted with different sets of responsibilities to different degrees, over the course of economic history. Perhaps it makes more sense now to develop a fiscal institution to run insurance than to continue to rely on a market-based solution.
- pseg134 3y ago
  Well since your are the one proposing changes, what makes you think that a “fiscal institution” (whatever that is) would be more effective than the current market based solution. Don’t mention your feelings for extra credit.
- whalesalad 3y ago
  Nothing in life is free. There must be balance. Regardless of whether an insurance company is public or private these bedrock issues of “can we remain in the black?” will remain. A “fiscal institution” that is losing money on claims will fail. Plain and simple.
  - uoaei 3y ago
    Accounting is different when you're a government that issues its own currency. There is no such thing as losing "money" when such conditions exist. I didn't recognize the difference between fiscal and monetary policy until I appreciated this fact -- maybe it will help you too. The perspective then changes to losing domestic economic activity, which would surely occur if lives are ruined because their assets are destroyed before preparations have been made or eventualities prevented.