A counterargument is that people in places where we suffer few natural disasters shouldn’t have to subsidize people that choose to live in places like Florida that suffer frequent disasters.
If the government becomes responsible for the bills to rebuild from disaster, then the government should have the ability to tell people they can’t live somewhere that is going to flood every 10 years. And I imagine most people don’t want that.
The free market solution to disincentivize people from living in places that increasingly suffer regular disasters is for it to become increasingly expensive to live there. Insurance prices skyrocketing accomplishes that, and if someone can’t afford the insurance then they should cash out and move somewhere where they can afford to live.
But really, the problems in Florida are more about insurance fraud and a state government disinterested in doing anything about it. Maybe this will put pressure on the populace to forget culture wars and vote for people that will fix their problems. Ha!
While I do understand your argument. This is a planned effort by insurers. They are all pulling out of these areas in protest in an attempt to persuade the government to increase the amount they pay to insurers to cover these areas. The government already subsidizes insurance sold in these areas and while it does come out of your taxes it does not impact your insurance costs regardless of what you might have been told.
SOURCE: This is second hand from a close friend who is an insurance executive at one of these firms. They are also doing this in California.
It’s funny how fans of the free market assume that anyone can just pick up and leave, ignoring how godawful expensive that act is in itself. What about family and friend ties? Do you even realize how difficult it is to move across state lines? Your entire premise is so absolutely separated from reality.
Ok Boomer. This fuck you I got mine attitude is one of the major problems we face in this country. The notion that everyone can just chose where they live is naive at best and your privilege is showing if you actually believe it. The nightmare political situation we are seeing is largely due to older generations who live by exactly your way of thinking and selfish actions.
Nothing will improve until you people are extinct.
Insurance can only work as long as input and output is balanced. It is a (sad) fact that hurricanes get worse, and the risk and cost of damage in Florida is going to rise. They could probably offer home insurance in Florida, but the premiums would be so high that people would not buy it anyway.
The question will not be “Can you afford to move out of Florida?”, but “Can you afford to stay in Florida?”.
A counterargument is that people in places where we suffer few natural disasters shouldn’t have to subsidize people that choose to live in places like Florida that suffer frequent disasters.
If the government becomes responsible for the bills to rebuild from disaster, then the government should have the ability to tell people they can’t live somewhere that is going to flood every 10 years. And I imagine most people don’t want that.
The free market solution to disincentivize people from living in places that increasingly suffer regular disasters is for it to become increasingly expensive to live there. Insurance prices skyrocketing accomplishes that, and if someone can’t afford the insurance then they should cash out and move somewhere where they can afford to live.
But really, the problems in Florida are more about insurance fraud and a state government disinterested in doing anything about it. Maybe this will put pressure on the populace to forget culture wars and vote for people that will fix their problems. Ha!
While I do understand your argument. This is a planned effort by insurers. They are all pulling out of these areas in protest in an attempt to persuade the government to increase the amount they pay to insurers to cover these areas. The government already subsidizes insurance sold in these areas and while it does come out of your taxes it does not impact your insurance costs regardless of what you might have been told.
SOURCE: This is second hand from a close friend who is an insurance executive at one of these firms. They are also doing this in California.
It’s still feasible to tax risky areas more. If a property becomes uninsurable, great that property gets a big tax break and rebuilt every 10 years.
It’s funny how fans of the free market assume that anyone can just pick up and leave, ignoring how godawful expensive that act is in itself. What about family and friend ties? Do you even realize how difficult it is to move across state lines? Your entire premise is so absolutely separated from reality.
Ok Boomer. This fuck you I got mine attitude is one of the major problems we face in this country. The notion that everyone can just chose where they live is naive at best and your privilege is showing if you actually believe it. The nightmare political situation we are seeing is largely due to older generations who live by exactly your way of thinking and selfish actions. Nothing will improve until you people are extinct.
Insurance can only work as long as input and output is balanced. It is a (sad) fact that hurricanes get worse, and the risk and cost of damage in Florida is going to rise. They could probably offer home insurance in Florida, but the premiums would be so high that people would not buy it anyway.
The question will not be “Can you afford to move out of Florida?”, but “Can you afford to stay in Florida?”.