4 ms·

You’re quite right, but I’m not sure it’s a practical solution. While those are populous states, as someone not living in either it is not super attractive to

You’re quite right, but I’m not sure it’s a practical solution. While those are populous states, as someone not living in either it is not super attractive to start subsidizing people who choose to live in increasingly disastrous zones. Yes, flood insurance and some other examples, but my objection isn’t based on platonic ideals of equally bad policy for everyone, it’s based on pragmatic ideals of not extending bad policy more widely. Let the market price insurance. At most I might support a mandatory tax on profits that is set aside to cover exceptional future losses, kind of FDIC-like.

jghn 3y ago
> it is not super attractive to start subsidizing people who choose to live in increasingly disastrous zones At the risk of taking this down a political path, I'll take this a step further. States like FL who fall into this bucket are further aggravating as they are also the ones that espouse personal responsibility & small government. I'm not personally against subsidizing these things. But I am against people screaming until they're blue in the face that they hate socialism and then cry foul when their insurance rates are too expensive for them to afford.
- pc86 3y ago
  What does a small government ideology have to do with a private insurance company making a business decision? You're injecting politics because you don't like the politics of Florida as you see them, which is fine, but it doesn't really fit here.
  - jghn 3y ago
    When their insurance rates get to be unaffordable and/or their homes are destroyed without insurance the complaints tend to shift to being that the government should do something to help them out of the predicament. I'm 100% fine with an individual choosing to not pay going insurance rates and choosing to live in a risky environment. I'm also 100% fine with that person eschewing the idea that government should be subsidizing anything. I'm 0% fine with such people coming back and complaining that the leopards ate their face.

jghn 3y ago

> it is not super attractive to start subsidizing people who choose to live in increasingly disastrous zones At the risk of taking this down a political path, I'll take this a step further. States like FL who fall into this bucket are further aggravating as they are also the ones that espouse personal responsibility & small government. I'm not personally against subsidizing these things. But I am against people screaming until they're blue in the face that they hate socialism and then cry foul when their insurance rates are too expensive for them to afford.

pc86 3y ago
What does a small government ideology have to do with a private insurance company making a business decision? You're injecting politics because you don't like the politics of Florida as you see them, which is fine, but it doesn't really fit here.
- jghn 3y ago
  When their insurance rates get to be unaffordable and/or their homes are destroyed without insurance the complaints tend to shift to being that the government should do something to help them out of the predicament. I'm 100% fine with an individual choosing to not pay going insurance rates and choosing to live in a risky environment. I'm also 100% fine with that person eschewing the idea that government should be subsidizing anything. I'm 0% fine with such people coming back and complaining that the leopards ate their face.