Brkdncr@lemmy.world to News@lemmy.world · 5 months agoState Farm Seeks Enormous Rate Increases in California to Prevent Insolvency | KQEDwww.kqed.orgexternal-linkmessage-square30fedilinkarrow-up180arrow-down11
arrow-up179arrow-down1external-linkState Farm Seeks Enormous Rate Increases in California to Prevent Insolvency | KQEDwww.kqed.orgBrkdncr@lemmy.world to News@lemmy.world · 5 months agomessage-square30fedilink
minus-squarepartial_accumen@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·edit-25 months ago Seems like you conveniently forgot another option here? Seize the fucking company. It belongs to California now. Assuming the financial report about State Farm’s insolvency in California is true, how do you think this will help? Lets play out your scenario: California state gov seizes State Farm California (they can’t seize it in other states). SF is already broke. Current premiums don’t cover the cost of near future claims. What little money the current premiums come in goes to pay some claims Employees stop getting paychecks. Lots of homeowner claims go unpaid without more money from somewhere. Employees quit because they aren’t getting paychecks without more money from somewhere. What are you advocating for differently than the scenario above? Where is the needed money going to come from to: keep premiums the same level they are now pay out future claims that exceed the revenue from premiums pay employees to continue to process claims Where is that money?
Assuming the financial report about State Farm’s insolvency in California is true, how do you think this will help?
Lets play out your scenario:
What are you advocating for differently than the scenario above? Where is the needed money going to come from to:
Where is that money?