3 ms·

Florida is also the worst state in the country as far as natural disasters go. Most of the state’s real estate is completely uninsurable and has to be backstopp

Florida is also the worst state in the country as far as natural disasters go. Most of the state’s real estate is completely uninsurable and has to be backstopped by the National Flood Insurance Program which tax payers have to bail out every few years.

faeriechangling 3y ago
Diffusing the insurance bill like this not only helps win votes in a swing state, it lets people pretend that global warming isn’t an issue and never will be an issue for a few years longer.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  Is FL still a swing state?
  - pc86 3y ago
    Yes.
  - alistairSH 3y ago
    Sort of. At the state level, the GOP has veto-proof majorities in the legislature plus the governorship. Democrats have only won the state’s presidential election 5 times in the last ~50 years. And o e of those (Clinton) wasn’t a majority. But it’s close.
phkahler 3y ago
>> Most of the state’s real estate is completely uninsurable and has to be backstopped by the National Flood Insurance Program Which should not pay to rebuild there. Sure, pay to relocate/rebuild somewhere insurable.
- I_Am_Nous 3y ago
  There's nowhere in Florida that is insurable, though. Hurricanes are regularly wider than the entire state. Even if it just has one-half of the storm hit it, the entire state is still likely to be hit.
  - c1sc0 3y ago
    Then maybe that is a sign people shouldn't live there.
    - paxys 3y ago
      Or rather acknowledge that they are on their own if they do instead of expecting constant taxpayer bailouts.
  - pc86 3y ago
    Sounds like a feature, not a bug. If you can't get a private company to insure you, the government should (and does) insure you as a last resort, usually more expensive than any commercial insurance but still at a loss. But, paying out just to rebuild in the same spot is idiotic. The program should only pay out if you use that money to relocate and/or rebuild somewhere where you can get commercial insurance. If that means you need to move, so be it. If you can just pay out of pocket to rebuild every few years, that's fine. It's not a human right to live on a beach in a state that gets nailed by a record-setting hurricane every 3 or 4 years (and several times in between).
  - spydum 3y ago
    I think that's a rather uneducated spoonfed media hyperbole. Hurricanes do damage for sure, but generally it is to: - older properties not up to code - coastal properties Plenty of places in the state which are insurable, and at minimal risk, but are getting steamrolled by insurance increases. A good chunk of that is roofing insurance fraud. Nobody pays to reroof anymore out of their own pocket.
    - I_Am_Nous 3y ago
      My comment is in response to a discussion about flood insurance. I wasn't intending to say every year hurricanes scrape the peninsula back to top soil and everything must be rebuilt completely. Are there parts of Florida that aren't flooded by every hurricane? Rate increases for insurance in lower risk zones are what pay for repairs in higher risk zones. How many rate increases will it take before most people can't afford insurance? 76% of Florida's population lives in coastal counties[1] and if the remaining 24% of the population has to pay more to insure those high risk coastal properties, but can't (or won't) then it sounds like there is at the very least an insurability crisis which needs addressed. 1. https://www.usgs.gov/centers/spcmsc/science/florida-coastal-mapping-program https://www.usgs.gov/centers/spcmsc/science/florida-coastal-...
- selfselfgo 3y ago
  [dead]
- mschuster91 3y ago
  Or pay to rebuild in a way that's at least somewhat resistant to weather damage instead of wood and cardboard. Like, virtually all "disaster aftermath" footage from choppers and drones shows the remains of homes that would get you yeeted out of the planning authority's office here in Europe.
  - phkahler 3y ago
    >> Or pay to rebuild in a way that's at least somewhat resistant to weather damage instead of wood and cardboard. Maybe, but it's my tax dollars. I'm willing to grandfather in an existing home, but I'm not going to pay to rebuild with upgrades, and I'm not willing to pay a dime for the same property again in the future. The rest of the country should not subsidize people living in high risk places.
ghaff 3y ago
It's low lying and, geographically, is pretty much a magnet for hurricanes. Even aside from what I find is a miserable climate, I couldn't imagine moving there absent really compelling reasons.
nradov 3y ago
It's easy to criticize Florida, but California is also essentially uninsurable for earthquake risks even with government subsidies. While insurance is technically available, very few homeowners purchase it because it's just pointless. Premiums are high and if the big one hits we won't get much. Everyone sort of implicitly assumes that in a real disaster the federal and state governments will bail us out somehow even if we're uninsured. And now some parts of California are also becoming uninsurable for wildfire risks. More and more homeowners are switching to government subsidized minimal coverage plans as commercial insurers increasingly refuse to write. What we'll probably end up doing in Florida, California, and other vulnerable states is further tightening building codes so that structures are more resilient to natural disasters. Better to build something durable than to use insurance money to rebuild after every major disaster. The downside is that this will make housing even more expensive in areas where there are already critical shortages.
- throwup238 3y ago
  > And now some parts of California are also becoming uninsurable for wildfire risks. More and more homeowners are switching to government subsidized minimal coverage plans as commercial insurers increasingly refuse to write. That's just FUD from the insurance industry. The vast majority (97%) of California home owners still have a competitive private option and the California FAIR plan insurer of last resort is a little more expensive but fully self funded, unlike the NFIP. To my knowledge it has never been bailed out by taxpayers since it was introduced almost sixty years ago. Most of the remaining 3% are in such remote areas they don't even have municipal fire fighters. My parents have the FAIR plan in an exurb that hasn't burned in over a century and has had a major nearby wildfire a few years ago, but their immediate neighbors have private fire insurance. They have agreements with their insurers to kill all the small and medium sized plants on their properties with roundup, creating a 50-100 ft fire break around the houses. Since my parents bought the property to grow food on a ten acre homestead, they pay a little extra for the FAIR plan instead of killing everything. Earthquake risk is hard to evaluate because of all the retrofitting. I'd be more worried about Seattle/Portland but yeah everyone just assumes California will be bailed out when the big one hits (just like we've been bailing out the East and Gulf coast for decades)

faeriechangling 3y ago

Diffusing the insurance bill like this not only helps win votes in a swing state, it lets people pretend that global warming isn’t an issue and never will be an issue for a few years longer.

lotsofpulp 3y ago
Is FL still a swing state?
- pc86 3y ago
  Yes.
- alistairSH 3y ago
  Sort of. At the state level, the GOP has veto-proof majorities in the legislature plus the governorship. Democrats have only won the state’s presidential election 5 times in the last ~50 years. And o e of those (Clinton) wasn’t a majority. But it’s close.

phkahler 3y ago

>> Most of the state’s real estate is completely uninsurable and has to be backstopped by the National Flood Insurance Program Which should not pay to rebuild there. Sure, pay to relocate/rebuild somewhere insurable.

I_Am_Nous 3y ago
There's nowhere in Florida that is insurable, though. Hurricanes are regularly wider than the entire state. Even if it just has one-half of the storm hit it, the entire state is still likely to be hit.
- c1sc0 3y ago
  Then maybe that is a sign people shouldn't live there.
  - paxys 3y ago
    Or rather acknowledge that they are on their own if they do instead of expecting constant taxpayer bailouts.
- pc86 3y ago
  Sounds like a feature, not a bug. If you can't get a private company to insure you, the government should (and does) insure you as a last resort, usually more expensive than any commercial insurance but still at a loss. But, paying out just to rebuild in the same spot is idiotic. The program should only pay out if you use that money to relocate and/or rebuild somewhere where you can get commercial insurance. If that means you need to move, so be it. If you can just pay out of pocket to rebuild every few years, that's fine. It's not a human right to live on a beach in a state that gets nailed by a record-setting hurricane every 3 or 4 years (and several times in between).
- spydum 3y ago
  I think that's a rather uneducated spoonfed media hyperbole. Hurricanes do damage for sure, but generally it is to: - older properties not up to code - coastal properties Plenty of places in the state which are insurable, and at minimal risk, but are getting steamrolled by insurance increases. A good chunk of that is roofing insurance fraud. Nobody pays to reroof anymore out of their own pocket.
  - I_Am_Nous 3y ago
    My comment is in response to a discussion about flood insurance. I wasn't intending to say every year hurricanes scrape the peninsula back to top soil and everything must be rebuilt completely. Are there parts of Florida that aren't flooded by every hurricane? Rate increases for insurance in lower risk zones are what pay for repairs in higher risk zones. How many rate increases will it take before most people can't afford insurance? 76% of Florida's population lives in coastal counties[1] and if the remaining 24% of the population has to pay more to insure those high risk coastal properties, but can't (or won't) then it sounds like there is at the very least an insurability crisis which needs addressed. 1. https://www.usgs.gov/centers/spcmsc/science/florida-coastal-mapping-program https://www.usgs.gov/centers/spcmsc/science/florida-coastal-...
selfselfgo 3y ago
[dead]
mschuster91 3y ago
Or pay to rebuild in a way that's at least somewhat resistant to weather damage instead of wood and cardboard. Like, virtually all "disaster aftermath" footage from choppers and drones shows the remains of homes that would get you yeeted out of the planning authority's office here in Europe.
- phkahler 3y ago
  >> Or pay to rebuild in a way that's at least somewhat resistant to weather damage instead of wood and cardboard. Maybe, but it's my tax dollars. I'm willing to grandfather in an existing home, but I'm not going to pay to rebuild with upgrades, and I'm not willing to pay a dime for the same property again in the future. The rest of the country should not subsidize people living in high risk places.

ghaff 3y ago

It's low lying and, geographically, is pretty much a magnet for hurricanes. Even aside from what I find is a miserable climate, I couldn't imagine moving there absent really compelling reasons.

nradov 3y ago

It's easy to criticize Florida, but California is also essentially uninsurable for earthquake risks even with government subsidies. While insurance is technically available, very few homeowners purchase it because it's just pointless. Premiums are high and if the big one hits we won't get much. Everyone sort of implicitly assumes that in a real disaster the federal and state governments will bail us out somehow even if we're uninsured. And now some parts of California are also becoming uninsurable for wildfire risks. More and more homeowners are switching to government subsidized minimal coverage plans as commercial insurers increasingly refuse to write. What we'll probably end up doing in Florida, California, and other vulnerable states is further tightening building codes so that structures are more resilient to natural disasters. Better to build something durable than to use insurance money to rebuild after every major disaster. The downside is that this will make housing even more expensive in areas where there are already critical shortages.

throwup238 3y ago
> And now some parts of California are also becoming uninsurable for wildfire risks. More and more homeowners are switching to government subsidized minimal coverage plans as commercial insurers increasingly refuse to write. That's just FUD from the insurance industry. The vast majority (97%) of California home owners still have a competitive private option and the California FAIR plan insurer of last resort is a little more expensive but fully self funded, unlike the NFIP. To my knowledge it has never been bailed out by taxpayers since it was introduced almost sixty years ago. Most of the remaining 3% are in such remote areas they don't even have municipal fire fighters. My parents have the FAIR plan in an exurb that hasn't burned in over a century and has had a major nearby wildfire a few years ago, but their immediate neighbors have private fire insurance. They have agreements with their insurers to kill all the small and medium sized plants on their properties with roundup, creating a 50-100 ft fire break around the houses. Since my parents bought the property to grow food on a ten acre homestead, they pay a little extra for the FAIR plan instead of killing everything. Earthquake risk is hard to evaluate because of all the retrofitting. I'd be more worried about Seattle/Portland but yeah everyone just assumes California will be bailed out when the big one hits (just like we've been bailing out the East and Gulf coast for decades)