4 ms·

Good. My insurance premiums (and to a huge degree now, taxes) shouldn't go to pay for people who keep rebuilding in a swamp that is routinely leveled by hurric

Good. My insurance premiums (and to a huge degree now, taxes) shouldn't go to pay for people who keep rebuilding in a swamp that is routinely leveled by hurricanes. Especially not when those people not only don't believe in climate science but support elected officials who attempt to ban climate science from policy, education, etc. Just because there's land somewhere doesn't mean society has to support you building there. I'd say the same to people who put houses on seashores, or cliff faces where there is landslide risk.

GenerWork 3y ago
What about wildfires and earthquake risks?
- geodel 3y ago
  Simple, don't build on earth. I don't see climate science is against living on Mars or such.
- BobaFloutist 3y ago
  Earthquake risk is largely not the problem. Wildfire risk is the same deal though, our insurance and electricity costs are incredibly inflated to subsidize the small fraction of the population that wants to live in the wilderness.
geodel 3y ago
Well Californians and their politicians do support climate science so your taxes can go there at least.
quickslowdown 3y ago
I do agree with you, but I can also appreciate that this is the purpose of insurance. It's perverted to a point where it no longer serves its intended purpose, but on paper, this is how it should work. We all pool money together, some people use it more (if they live in Florida, for example), but we're all paying in just in case we end up needing it. Because insurance companies are fucking ghouls, the system doesn't work that way, which is why I agree with you considering the current system.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  Insurance is for unknown risks. Once a risk is sufficiently known and likely, it becomes a subsidy.
SigmundA 3y ago
>My insurance premiums (and to a huge degree now, taxes) shouldn't go to pay for people who keep rebuilding in a swamp that is routinely leveled by hurricanes. I live in Tampa 50ft above sea level which hasn't been hit directly in 100 years and my property value would only go up if sea levels rise. My house is 70 years old and made of concrete block. There are many more houses not in flood zone than are but everyone is getting hit. So while it's great you are't covering any risk for us down here, risk is still being spread, which is what insurance is for btw. My father in law has a house on stilts in the woods nowhere near any flooding or water because the guy who built it just wanted a house on stilts, he has a very hard time finding insurance now because of a "if stilts then deny" business rule somewhere in some automated system. I am not a fan of the political climate down here or its policies, but it wasn't always this way. The current insurance situation is ridiculous whatever the reason similar to health insurance and to me it seems mostly related to profiteering at all levels.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  > So while it's great you are't covering any risk for us down here, risk is still being spread, which is what insurance is for btw. All federal taxpayers are subsidizing Florida and much of the southeast coast via NFIP, and have been for a long time. And insurance is for spreading unknown and unlikely risks. Spreading costs from likely and known risks is called a subsidy. That is why your house 50ft above sea level would have a lower premium than one likelier to flood at a lower elevation.
  - SigmundA 3y ago
    I don't need flood insurance and yes if you do that is separate and covered by NFIP the government program because private will not cover at all here. I brought that up due to the parent comment referencing building in a swamp. All premiums are going up do to wind coverage not water, now define unknown and unlikely vs known and likely. Again Tampa hasn't been hit by a hurricane in 100 years, I am sure it will get hit at some point which is known but is that likely or unlikely? All insurance runs on actuarial science, likely or unlikely are not an actuarial term afaik, all covered risks are known at this point it's just a matter of their statistical probability.

GenerWork 3y ago

What about wildfires and earthquake risks?

geodel 3y ago
Simple, don't build on earth. I don't see climate science is against living on Mars or such.
BobaFloutist 3y ago
Earthquake risk is largely not the problem. Wildfire risk is the same deal though, our insurance and electricity costs are incredibly inflated to subsidize the small fraction of the population that wants to live in the wilderness.

geodel 3y ago

Well Californians and their politicians do support climate science so your taxes can go there at least.

quickslowdown 3y ago

I do agree with you, but I can also appreciate that this is the purpose of insurance. It's perverted to a point where it no longer serves its intended purpose, but on paper, this is how it should work. We all pool money together, some people use it more (if they live in Florida, for example), but we're all paying in just in case we end up needing it. Because insurance companies are fucking ghouls, the system doesn't work that way, which is why I agree with you considering the current system.

lotsofpulp 3y ago
Insurance is for unknown risks. Once a risk is sufficiently known and likely, it becomes a subsidy.

SigmundA 3y ago

>My insurance premiums (and to a huge degree now, taxes) shouldn't go to pay for people who keep rebuilding in a swamp that is routinely leveled by hurricanes. I live in Tampa 50ft above sea level which hasn't been hit directly in 100 years and my property value would only go up if sea levels rise. My house is 70 years old and made of concrete block. There are many more houses not in flood zone than are but everyone is getting hit. So while it's great you are't covering any risk for us down here, risk is still being spread, which is what insurance is for btw. My father in law has a house on stilts in the woods nowhere near any flooding or water because the guy who built it just wanted a house on stilts, he has a very hard time finding insurance now because of a "if stilts then deny" business rule somewhere in some automated system. I am not a fan of the political climate down here or its policies, but it wasn't always this way. The current insurance situation is ridiculous whatever the reason similar to health insurance and to me it seems mostly related to profiteering at all levels.

lotsofpulp 3y ago
> So while it's great you are't covering any risk for us down here, risk is still being spread, which is what insurance is for btw. All federal taxpayers are subsidizing Florida and much of the southeast coast via NFIP, and have been for a long time. And insurance is for spreading unknown and unlikely risks. Spreading costs from likely and known risks is called a subsidy. That is why your house 50ft above sea level would have a lower premium than one likelier to flood at a lower elevation.
- SigmundA 3y ago
  I don't need flood insurance and yes if you do that is separate and covered by NFIP the government program because private will not cover at all here. I brought that up due to the parent comment referencing building in a swamp. All premiums are going up do to wind coverage not water, now define unknown and unlikely vs known and likely. Again Tampa hasn't been hit by a hurricane in 100 years, I am sure it will get hit at some point which is known but is that likely or unlikely? All insurance runs on actuarial science, likely or unlikely are not an actuarial term afaik, all covered risks are known at this point it's just a matter of their statistical probability.