Perhaps the most interesting part of the article:

  • derf82@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 days 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@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      2 days 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@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days 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@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          20 hours 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@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            19 hours 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.