4 ms·
I wonder why California thinks it needs to implement pricing controls as well as provide its own alternate insurance. Is this latter construct the “public opti
by georgeburdell 2y ago
I wonder why California thinks it needs to implement pricing controls as well as provide its own alternate insurance. Is this latter construct the “public option” equivalent for home insurance? California ought to compete for business with the private companies, not drive them away.
- jeffbee 2y ago"California" might not think this now but in 1988 at the tail end of a spectacular streak of magical thinking on the part of the electorate these insurance regulations were passed by plebiscite, so it will take either another supermajority plebiscite or a political revolution to fix the regs.
- khuey 2y agoIt only requires a majority plebiscite, not a supermajority, to fix.
- navi0 2y agoNote: CA (un)FAIR Plan is not underwritten nor operated by the State of California. It is a state-mandated insurer of last resort run by an association of admitted insurers. If it experiences losses that exceed its assets and reinsurance coverage (which its president has said is a real probability), then every admitted policyholder in CA would be assessed a fee over the course of 1-3 years to cover the gap. The CA FAIR Plan only offers $300/sq foot to rebuild, which is far less than the $500-1000/sq foot it costs to build new construction in most parts of the state. In other words: the backstop for the CA FAIR Plan being unable to charge risk-appropriate premiums is an involuntarily assessment of policyholders in lower risk locations.
- hackernewds 2y agoYou'd prefer the government with unlimited resources and little incentive for quality should compete with private enterprise?