5 ms·

Should I say it before after they get their government subsidized insurance money?

Acrobatic_Road 2y ago
Government subsidized? >After saying it would run out of funds by March, California’s last-resort fire insurance provider will impose a special charge of $1 billion on insurance companies — which will in turn pass the costs along to homeowners — the first such move in more than three decades. https://calmatters.org/economy/2025/02/homeowners-insurance-costs-rising-in-california-fair-plan/ https://calmatters.org/economy/2025/02/homeowners-insurance-...
- sanderjd 2y ago
  I'm a little confused... You're citing the existence of the government subsidy as a way to question its existence?
  - Acrobatic_Road 2y ago
    The state (and city of LA): 1. Created dangerous conditions through inadequate fire management. 2. Prevented the private market from adequately communicating the risk through price increases. As a result, 7/12 of insurers stopped or restricted selling new policies. 3. Created a moral hazard by selling it's own policies to homeowners who were dropped by the private market. 4. Failed to respond to the fires. 5. Failed to cover claims through its insurance program. 6. Is trying to bail itself out by extracting $1 billion tax from the rest of the state. Yet we're supposed to be thankful for this? You could say the people whose homes burned are grateful they are being bailed out at everyone else's expense. But I bet they would be much happier if their homes had never burned down in the first place - a debacle that was entirely avoidable.
    - sanderjd 2y ago
      The question wasn't "should you be thankful?", the question was "has fire insurance been heavily subsidized by the state?". The answer to that question, which is implicit in multiple of the bullet points in your comment, is: Yes, fire insurance has been heavily subsidized by the state. Separately, as convenient as it is to blame the state for the fire happening in the first place, the truth is just that wildfires are more common now, and are going to continue being more common, because of climate change. That's a bummer, but it isn't the fault of the state of California alone.
      - Acrobatic_Road 2y ago
        >Yes, fire insurance has been heavily subsidized by the state. No, it wasn't subsidized by the state. The state has actually made fire insurance more expensive for everyone - including the people who lost their homes. >Separately, as convenient as it is to blame the state for the fire happening in the first place, the truth is just that wildfires are more common now, and are going to continue being more common, because of climate change. What's actually convenient is blaming a series of predictable policy failures on "climate change" - something that cannot be held accountable - rather than the politicians who can be.
        sanderjd 2y ago
        In your earlier comment you said: > 3. Created a moral hazard by selling it's own policies to homeowners who were dropped by the private market. My friend, that's the subsidy. Those are public policies with subsidized premiums. It also isn't clear what "predictable policy failures" you think caused the fire and allowed it to spread. The problem is that fire risk is way up in a lot of places, including LA. Insurers know this, so all else equal, their premiums would also be way up. However, the premiums are now too high for most people to afford. So policy makers can either just let people be priced out of areas with high fire risk, or they can subsidize insuring those areas. Neither option is a good one. Maybe if we put you in charge of all the governments in these areas, we would find that you do actually have the magical solution to square this circle, but I'm very skeptical. I think you're just doing the normal thing - which is your right as a citizen of a democratic system of government! - of complaining about whichever policy was chosen of the universally bad options available.
        Acrobatic_Road 2y ago
        That's not a subsidy unless your definition of a subsidy is anytime the government gives anyone anything. It would be a subsidy if the state provided the private market with financial incentives to reduce premiums. That is not what they are doing. Instead, they are offering a product that the market doesn't want to provide, and bailing themselves out by increasing premiums when their genius move goes up in smoke. >So policy makers can either just let people be priced out of areas with high fire risk, or they can subsidize insuring those areas. Neither option is a good one. No actually option #1 is exactly what the state should have done. You want to live in a dangerous place? That's your choice, but you should be prepared to pay the price for it. When the state offers these policies, they are encouraging people to live in harm's way. If those who died had been priced out of these areas, they might still be alive today - just living somewhere else.

Government subsidized? >After saying it would run out of funds by March, California’s last-resort fire insurance provider will impose a special charge of $1 billion on insurance companies — which will in turn pass the costs along to homeowners — the first such move in more than three decades. https://calmatters.org/economy/2025/02/homeowners-insurance-costs-rising-in-california-fair-plan/ https://calmatters.org/economy/2025/02/homeowners-insurance-...

sanderjd 2y ago
I'm a little confused... You're citing the existence of the government subsidy as a way to question its existence?
- Acrobatic_Road 2y ago
  The state (and city of LA): 1. Created dangerous conditions through inadequate fire management. 2. Prevented the private market from adequately communicating the risk through price increases. As a result, 7/12 of insurers stopped or restricted selling new policies. 3. Created a moral hazard by selling it's own policies to homeowners who were dropped by the private market. 4. Failed to respond to the fires. 5. Failed to cover claims through its insurance program. 6. Is trying to bail itself out by extracting $1 billion tax from the rest of the state. Yet we're supposed to be thankful for this? You could say the people whose homes burned are grateful they are being bailed out at everyone else's expense. But I bet they would be much happier if their homes had never burned down in the first place - a debacle that was entirely avoidable.
  - sanderjd 2y ago
    The question wasn't "should you be thankful?", the question was "has fire insurance been heavily subsidized by the state?". The answer to that question, which is implicit in multiple of the bullet points in your comment, is: Yes, fire insurance has been heavily subsidized by the state. Separately, as convenient as it is to blame the state for the fire happening in the first place, the truth is just that wildfires are more common now, and are going to continue being more common, because of climate change. That's a bummer, but it isn't the fault of the state of California alone.
    - Acrobatic_Road 2y ago
      >Yes, fire insurance has been heavily subsidized by the state. No, it wasn't subsidized by the state. The state has actually made fire insurance more expensive for everyone - including the people who lost their homes. >Separately, as convenient as it is to blame the state for the fire happening in the first place, the truth is just that wildfires are more common now, and are going to continue being more common, because of climate change. What's actually convenient is blaming a series of predictable policy failures on "climate change" - something that cannot be held accountable - rather than the politicians who can be.
      - sanderjd 2y ago
        In your earlier comment you said: > 3. Created a moral hazard by selling it's own policies to homeowners who were dropped by the private market. My friend, that's the subsidy. Those are public policies with subsidized premiums. It also isn't clear what "predictable policy failures" you think caused the fire and allowed it to spread. The problem is that fire risk is way up in a lot of places, including LA. Insurers know this, so all else equal, their premiums would also be way up. However, the premiums are now too high for most people to afford. So policy makers can either just let people be priced out of areas with high fire risk, or they can subsidize insuring those areas. Neither option is a good one. Maybe if we put you in charge of all the governments in these areas, we would find that you do actually have the magical solution to square this circle, but I'm very skeptical. I think you're just doing the normal thing - which is your right as a citizen of a democratic system of government! - of complaining about whichever policy was chosen of the universally bad options available.
        Acrobatic_Road 2y ago
        That's not a subsidy unless your definition of a subsidy is anytime the government gives anyone anything. It would be a subsidy if the state provided the private market with financial incentives to reduce premiums. That is not what they are doing. Instead, they are offering a product that the market doesn't want to provide, and bailing themselves out by increasing premiums when their genius move goes up in smoke. >So policy makers can either just let people be priced out of areas with high fire risk, or they can subsidize insuring those areas. Neither option is a good one. No actually option #1 is exactly what the state should have done. You want to live in a dangerous place? That's your choice, but you should be prepared to pay the price for it. When the state offers these policies, they are encouraging people to live in harm's way. If those who died had been priced out of these areas, they might still be alive today - just living somewhere else.