4 ms·

This is such an American reply and one that as a European, I find mildly amusing. Where do you live that’s so safe and disasters are uncommon and aren’t on the

by jarym 3y ago

This is such an American reply and one that as a European, I find mildly amusing. Where do you live that’s so safe and disasters are uncommon and aren’t on the increase? Everywhere will have different risk factors, the American attitude seems to be ‘I won’t pay for anyone else, even if it means I ultimately will have to pay more’.

ejb999 3y ago
There are some kind of risks everywhere, but denying the fact the some places are dramatically more risky kind of misses the point. Where I live, hardly any disasters - tornado about every 100 years, last time there was huge wildfires was just after WWII, zero risk of flooding - biggest 'risk' I have is being snowed in for a few days as I dig out - there are plenty of places that have a much lower risk profile - and people like me, that pick where we live based in part on the risk, shouldn't have to pay extra insurance to cover people who willing choose to live in low-lying, flood prone areas.
dghlsakjg 3y ago
Remind me again what part of Europe predictably and regularly receives 160 kmh winds at the same time as 3 meter floods? Are you allowed to build wooden houses along the beach there? If you build your house in an area like that and fail to build any sort of protection for expected conditions, why in the world should your losses be subsidized by everyone else? When the cost of insurance for your beach house is too high, that is a signal that you are at extreme risk, not a signal that you should pass a law to make the rest of the country pay for the portion of the risk that you can’t afford.
Analemma_ 3y ago
The point is that "insurance at market prices" should be considered part of the all-in cost of the house, and that if you can't afford it, you shouldn't have that house. Surely even as a European you agree that if you can't pay $10 million for a house on the French Riviera, then you don't get to have a house on the French Riviera; once you conceptually include insurance into the total cost of the house, the exact same logic applies.

by jarym 3y ago

ejb999 3y ago

There are some kind of risks everywhere, but denying the fact the some places are dramatically more risky kind of misses the point. Where I live, hardly any disasters - tornado about every 100 years, last time there was huge wildfires was just after WWII, zero risk of flooding - biggest 'risk' I have is being snowed in for a few days as I dig out - there are plenty of places that have a much lower risk profile - and people like me, that pick where we live based in part on the risk, shouldn't have to pay extra insurance to cover people who willing choose to live in low-lying, flood prone areas.

dghlsakjg 3y ago

Remind me again what part of Europe predictably and regularly receives 160 kmh winds at the same time as 3 meter floods? Are you allowed to build wooden houses along the beach there? If you build your house in an area like that and fail to build any sort of protection for expected conditions, why in the world should your losses be subsidized by everyone else? When the cost of insurance for your beach house is too high, that is a signal that you are at extreme risk, not a signal that you should pass a law to make the rest of the country pay for the portion of the risk that you can’t afford.

Analemma_ 3y ago

The point is that "insurance at market prices" should be considered part of the all-in cost of the house, and that if you can't afford it, you shouldn't have that house. Surely even as a European you agree that if you can't pay $10 million for a house on the French Riviera, then you don't get to have a house on the French Riviera; once you conceptually include insurance into the total cost of the house, the exact same logic applies.