5 ms·

First, insurance companies should be the last thing we consider when setting policy, this is propaganda for them trying to protect their racket, not anything mo

by andy99 1y ago

First, insurance companies should be the last thing we consider when setting policy, this is propaganda for them trying to protect their racket, not anything more telling. Second, governments and private companies should be looking at (socializing) mitigations that will keep risk within tolerable levels (without caring whether some legacy insurer continues to be able to gouge cusotmers). If there's a clear and identifiable threat, we can build dikes or sea walls or spillways or whatever it is that can alleviate the issue. "Think of the insurance implications" is a silly distraction.

milesskorpen 1y ago
At least in the US, insurers have been losing money in recent years. Definitely not price gouging. Insurance is an amazing service.
- andy99 1y ago
  > Insurance is an amazing service I've noticed it's done wonders for your healthcare system
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - NegativeK 1y ago
    I agree with your disgust with our healthcare, but I downvoted you because your comment is more of a gotcha than fostering conversation.
  - jlund-molfese 1y ago
    Health insurance in the US, and other countries, is pretty far from traditional insurance markets where you pay a small amount of money to cover rare, catastrophic events (like your house burning down, or an earthquake). The name might be similar, but the products actually function very differently. Health insurance in many countries covers routine, predictable "losses" like primary care for strep throat as well as long-term "losses" like prescription medication. A lot of this is because a traditional insurance model isn't palatable when it comes to healthcare. You can't really employ price or service discrimination against high-risk people with preexisting conditions, like you can with auto insuring a Ferrari, or home insuring a coastal house in a hurricane zone. Not to mention life insurance! You can't just look assume things work the same way because they have similar names.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- codeddesign 1y ago
  Many people don’t understand that insurance companies only make an 8-12% margin. Since each state requires all insurance companies to gain pricing approval to sell in their state (Filings), if healthcare costs go up within a given year the insurance company loses money. We don’t have an insurance issue, we have a healthcare and inflation cost issue. Same goes with home insurance. What many don’t know: if you don’t like your insurance cost, it’s because of state legislation and cost in YOUR state - not federal govt.
  - giantg2 1y ago
    "We don’t have an insurance issue, we have a healthcare and inflation cost issue. Same goes with home insurance." I think this is the primary driver. However, we can't ignore how insurance company behavior also influences the pricing. The feds play a bigger role in this than you might think with things like Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement rates and residency funding leading to provider scarcity.
kibwen 1y ago
> Second, governments and private companies should be looking at (socializing) mitigations that will keep risk within tolerable levels The moral hazard is killer here. I fear that in practice what this means is that the rest of the US will end up bailing out the gormless Floridians who refuse to stop building McMansions on the coast. Insert the gif of Bugs Bunny cutting off Florida and letting it drift off into the Caribbean.
- whatwrongwyou 1y ago
  This presumes that everyone who builds in coastal areas is "gormless" and deserves hardship. Millions of people live on islands and they don't get a choice where they build. Several Polynesian countries will disappear by the end of the decade. Are they "gormless"?
  - FireBeyond 1y ago
    When you’ve rebuilt in the Dane location for a third or fourth time, on the same lot, why should we keep subsidizing the process? At what point do we say “you cannot build here any more”?
    - whatwrongwyou 1y ago
      Even if that location is a fire-prone hillside in Los Angeles? Is the gormlessness of a housing choice correlated with the income of the homeowner?
    - UltraSane 1y ago
      At the very least houses should be required to be MUCH stronger, able to withstand 185 mph winds, which seems to be the highest ever for a Florida hurricane.
- hansvm 1y ago
  Easy. Don't apply the policy to new homes.
  - 1y ago
senthil_rajasek 1y ago
States like Florida in the U.S already have "state backed" insurers of last resort. Home insurance is definitely skyrocketing, I live in Minnesota and my premium tripled in 2024. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_Property_Insurance_Corporation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_Property_Insurance_...
giantg2 1y ago
"governments and private companies should be looking at (socializing) mitigations that will keep risk within tolerable levels" The problem is preference. There are more survivable structures and construction methods, but many people don't want to do them because they don't look as good. This isn't just a sea leave thing that might be better handled at the government level. We can look at stuff like the recent LA fires. If the stare was serious about fire prevention, they would apply the wildlands fire code to new construction in the city. Some people can't even be bothered about stuff like keeping dry brush away from their houses. As the country continues to build bigger and more expensive houses, we will continue to see prices rise.
throw0101d 1y ago
> First, insurance companies should be the last thing we consider when setting policy, this is propaganda for them trying to protect their racket, not anything more telling. Exactly what makes insurance a "racket"?
cameldrv 1y ago
You’re just shooting the messenger. The insurance companies don’t really make huge profit margins. There are also many mutual insurance companies that are non-profit. If they’re raising rates dramatically it’s because the risk is higher. Now, at a societal and governmental level, that is absolutely telling you that you should be looking at what mitigations are possible.
ndsipa_pomu 1y ago
Well, insurance companies should be the most knowledgable about potential risks. Personally, I don't think it makes sense to spend lots of money to continue building in unsustainable locations (e.g. regular flooding) and we shouldn't be socialising those risks. Building mitigations can make sense in some circumstances, and that should reduce insurance premiums after they've been shown to be effective.
snapplebobapple 1y ago
The first point isn't really true. We should definitely consider insurance company input when setting policy, we just have to be careful we consider if it's self serving BS, politically motivated nonsense, or intelligent concern with policy changes that could benefit humanity by mitigating the problem. As long as your putting 80% of what they say into bucket 1 or 2 you're probably fine.

by andy99 1y ago

milesskorpen 1y ago

At least in the US, insurers have been losing money in recent years. Definitely not price gouging. Insurance is an amazing service.

andy99 1y ago
> Insurance is an amazing service I've noticed it's done wonders for your healthcare system
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- NegativeK 1y ago
  I agree with your disgust with our healthcare, but I downvoted you because your comment is more of a gotcha than fostering conversation.
- jlund-molfese 1y ago
  Health insurance in the US, and other countries, is pretty far from traditional insurance markets where you pay a small amount of money to cover rare, catastrophic events (like your house burning down, or an earthquake). The name might be similar, but the products actually function very differently. Health insurance in many countries covers routine, predictable "losses" like primary care for strep throat as well as long-term "losses" like prescription medication. A lot of this is because a traditional insurance model isn't palatable when it comes to healthcare. You can't really employ price or service discrimination against high-risk people with preexisting conditions, like you can with auto insuring a Ferrari, or home insuring a coastal house in a hurricane zone. Not to mention life insurance! You can't just look assume things work the same way because they have similar names.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
codeddesign 1y ago
Many people don’t understand that insurance companies only make an 8-12% margin. Since each state requires all insurance companies to gain pricing approval to sell in their state (Filings), if healthcare costs go up within a given year the insurance company loses money. We don’t have an insurance issue, we have a healthcare and inflation cost issue. Same goes with home insurance. What many don’t know: if you don’t like your insurance cost, it’s because of state legislation and cost in YOUR state - not federal govt.
- giantg2 1y ago
  "We don’t have an insurance issue, we have a healthcare and inflation cost issue. Same goes with home insurance." I think this is the primary driver. However, we can't ignore how insurance company behavior also influences the pricing. The feds play a bigger role in this than you might think with things like Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement rates and residency funding leading to provider scarcity.

kibwen 1y ago

> Second, governments and private companies should be looking at (socializing) mitigations that will keep risk within tolerable levels The moral hazard is killer here. I fear that in practice what this means is that the rest of the US will end up bailing out the gormless Floridians who refuse to stop building McMansions on the coast. Insert the gif of Bugs Bunny cutting off Florida and letting it drift off into the Caribbean.

whatwrongwyou 1y ago
This presumes that everyone who builds in coastal areas is "gormless" and deserves hardship. Millions of people live on islands and they don't get a choice where they build. Several Polynesian countries will disappear by the end of the decade. Are they "gormless"?
- FireBeyond 1y ago
  When you’ve rebuilt in the Dane location for a third or fourth time, on the same lot, why should we keep subsidizing the process? At what point do we say “you cannot build here any more”?
  - whatwrongwyou 1y ago
    Even if that location is a fire-prone hillside in Los Angeles? Is the gormlessness of a housing choice correlated with the income of the homeowner?
  - UltraSane 1y ago
    At the very least houses should be required to be MUCH stronger, able to withstand 185 mph winds, which seems to be the highest ever for a Florida hurricane.
hansvm 1y ago
Easy. Don't apply the policy to new homes.
- 1y ago

senthil_rajasek 1y ago

States like Florida in the U.S already have "state backed" insurers of last resort. Home insurance is definitely skyrocketing, I live in Minnesota and my premium tripled in 2024. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_Property_Insurance_Corporation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_Property_Insurance_...

giantg2 1y ago

"governments and private companies should be looking at (socializing) mitigations that will keep risk within tolerable levels" The problem is preference. There are more survivable structures and construction methods, but many people don't want to do them because they don't look as good. This isn't just a sea leave thing that might be better handled at the government level. We can look at stuff like the recent LA fires. If the stare was serious about fire prevention, they would apply the wildlands fire code to new construction in the city. Some people can't even be bothered about stuff like keeping dry brush away from their houses. As the country continues to build bigger and more expensive houses, we will continue to see prices rise.

throw0101d 1y ago

> First, insurance companies should be the last thing we consider when setting policy, this is propaganda for them trying to protect their racket, not anything more telling. Exactly what makes insurance a "racket"?

cameldrv 1y ago

You’re just shooting the messenger. The insurance companies don’t really make huge profit margins. There are also many mutual insurance companies that are non-profit. If they’re raising rates dramatically it’s because the risk is higher. Now, at a societal and governmental level, that is absolutely telling you that you should be looking at what mitigations are possible.

ndsipa_pomu 1y ago

Well, insurance companies should be the most knowledgable about potential risks. Personally, I don't think it makes sense to spend lots of money to continue building in unsustainable locations (e.g. regular flooding) and we shouldn't be socialising those risks. Building mitigations can make sense in some circumstances, and that should reduce insurance premiums after they've been shown to be effective.

snapplebobapple 1y ago

The first point isn't really true. We should definitely consider insurance company input when setting policy, we just have to be careful we consider if it's self serving BS, politically motivated nonsense, or intelligent concern with policy changes that could benefit humanity by mitigating the problem. As long as your putting 80% of what they say into bucket 1 or 2 you're probably fine.