Perhaps the most interesting part of the article:

  • Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    10 days ago

    This is what fucking insurance is supposed to be for. It’s not a way of making obscene profits. It’s a way of making reasonable profits providing a service people need.

    The US government ought to require insurers to ensure everywhere had a reasonable cost, or get out of the fucking business. They ought to require a base rate everywhere across the nation. Let everyone see what these fuckers are up to.

    In Florida the state insures the highest risk people. It’s the same damn thing. Should we let the insurance companies have the low risk clients while we the people fund all the high risk clients?

    That’s bullshit.

    • JohnnyCanuck@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      10 days ago

      It’s a way of making reasonable profits providing a service people need.

      And 6 months ago they saw that they were likely to take major losses insuring homes in that area so they stopped renewing policies. So the options were to use the last-resort state provided insurance (FAIR Act), go uninsured, or move. A lot of people didn’t switch to the state insurance.

      • Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 days ago

        They’ve been collecting insurance payments on those houses WITHOUT LOSSES for many months. What happened to the money they paid over the years? Just consumed and forgotten by insurance companies? You pay $2000 a month for 360 months and then they decide to drop you and you have no coverage? That $700k+ you spent doesn’t count?

        With life insurance there Whole Life, where you pay until you’ve paid enough to make the value of the policy and then you stop. This problem could CERTAINLY be fixed. It will have to be legislated, though.

        • JohnnyCanuck@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          10 days ago

          That’s an entirely different argument, and your math is way off.

          You pay $2000 a month for 360 months

          I’m pretty sure the insurance is closer to $2000 per year. So $2000 per year for 30 years is $60000, which is not going to cover the total loss on a $300000 home. $2000 per month would be on something like a $10million home.

          They’ve been collecting insurance payments on those houses WITHOUT LOSSES for many months.

          If there had been no losses, people wouldn’t have needed insurance. There are 1000s of homes insured and some percentage of them will have had some amountof payouts from the pool of money. Insurance pays out for lots of different types of losses, and they have to weigh the risks. They’re not charities.

          Don’t get me wrong, insurance is a racket and they will do everything they can to deny coverage and stuff the pockets of their investors. But if you want to force them to provide coverage when there’s pretty much guaranteed losses, they will just exit the business altogether.

    • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 days ago

      The US government ought to require insurers to ensure everywhere had a reasonable cost, or get out of the fucking business.

      That’s literally what’s happening at the state level in California. And the insurers got out because they can’t cover their operating expenses while charging what the state considers a reasonable cost.