Perhaps the most interesting part of the article:

  • @derf82
    link
    English
    341 month ago

    With climate change, there is no option for “low cost” plan, government or no.

    You can’t constantly have massive losses like these fires in a single area all paying out claims and expect to pay them off with low premiums.

    • @Sanctus
      link
      English
      231 month ago

      I haven’t seen it in the comments yet but this is just the death spiral of climate change. Everything will just get worse from here on out as long as society operates the way it does. To everyone’s “surprise” I’m sure.

    • @solstice
      link
      71 month ago

      Yeah, I really do wonder when the government and rest of the people start to seriously consider if it is worth it dropping $50 billion on places like SoCal and South Florida every few years or so. At some point you need to do the math and ask hard questions about whether it is worth it, and the answer damn well may be no.

    • @A_Random_Idiot
      link
      English
      -81 month ago

      Did you pull a muscle? You know, stretching that hard to intentionally misconstrue what I said.

      • @derf82
        link
        English
        111 month ago

        Seems to me that’s exactly what you said.

        • @A_Random_Idiot
          link
          English
          130 days ago

          no, i said having a universal insurance would lower premiums significantly since there would be no corporate greed driving prices up for personal gain and everyone paying into a single pot.

          But please, keep stretching. You are apparently treating this topic like a yoga class and gotta stretch stretch stretch.

          • @derf82
            link
            English
            030 days ago

            Greed is bad, but its large losses in certain areas due to climate change-induced disasters that is pushing up prices far more than greed. You are the one that is stretching credulity more than a contortionist getting ready for their act.

            And are you saying we should not have risk-based premiums? Sounds like you want the rest of us to subsidize living in a disaster prone area. I will gladly choose insurers that chops to drop clients in disaster prone areas so I can afford my insurance.