• A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    60
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 months ago

    This is why insurance should be nationalized as part of your taxes.

    Anyone thats not a brainwashed rightwing lunatic would see that paying 100-300 dollars a year on taxes would be a hell of a lot better than 100+ dollars a month just to buy a CEO a golden parachute and another yacht

    But as long as right wing lunatics are out there literally hunting aid workers and evaluators, its never gonna happen… because they want misery, pain, and destruction. its why Project 2025 wants to get rid of all of it.

    • MSids@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      41
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      I agree with nationalized healthcare insurance, but I don’t know if I agree with using taxes to fund an underwriting account for houses in Florida that are guaranteed to get destroyed year after year.

      Hurricanes are not getting smaller. Continuing to rebuild in Florida seems like building in the shadow of a smoking volcano.

      • bamfic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Go a bit deeper. Everywhere is fucked. Nowhere will be insurable soon. Now what? Maybe we should get serious about degrowth and climate change instead

      • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        2 months ago

        So just stop helping people in florida specifically?

        Or we just gonna go full republican hatemonger and tell everyine from California earthquakes, To Midwestern Tornados, to Northern Blizzards, and more, to just get bent and that they should have thought to live somewhere without regular disasters? That they deserve what happens to them for “choosing” to live there?

        • MSids@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          My insurance company has determined that my house would cost about $450k to completely rebuild in the event of a total loss. Thankfully in the Northeast the risk of my house being destroyed is low, so they charge me $1,100 annually. Even with a few houses in my area being destroyed by fire, flood, or extreme weather, they still make enough to build up their reserves, pay their employees, and kick back some to the investors.

          How much would that company need to charge in Florida so they could still pay to fix the houses and pay everybody that works for them? Definitely not $1,100/yr because replacing just a single broken window costs $1,100.

          Now think about if the Federal government began covering Florida. They would have the same issue as private insurers - there is no amount they can charge that will not deplete their funds faster than they take in premiums.

          • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            Definitely not $1,100/yr because replacing just a single broken window costs $1,100.

            Gee, if only there was some kind of pooled money that people could pay into so they could cover such things. So people could pay small, affordable amounts to get taken care of and helped if tragedy strikes them.

            You know, like spreading the risk out, like some kind of…insurance?

            And besides, Sounds like you specifically just want to hang people out to dry in Florida for the sin of living in Florida since you conveniently neglected/ignored the biggest part of my post about where does the line get cut for telling people they don’t matter because where they live.

            And of course, I doubt you’d be so “Well I dont deserve help cause its my choice to live here” when disaster strikes where you live, or your mother, or family live. I bet you’d be full of righteous fury and indignation if anyone dared to say that to you.

            But its different when it personally affects you, right?

            • MSids@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 months ago

              If everyone in the US paid to rebuild Florida over and over that’s not insurance that’s practically a subsidy. Do you think it’s fair for someone in Illinois who has no benefit of Florida beach front views pay the price to fix a snowbirds vacation home over and over?

              Florida is different because the risk is perpetually high and living there is a choice. It’s fine for people to choose that risk, but I would expect sky high coverage.

              • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                2 months ago

                Do you think it’s fair for someone in Illinois who has no benefit of Florida beach front views pay the price to fix a snowbirds vacation home over and over?

                You’re right. Its not fair for people to have lower insurance costs and a single unified pool.

                It obviously makes much more sense to pay 3x the amount to a national, private insurance provder, have them take most of that for CEO and executive pay/bonuses/benefits, and then close offices and cancel policies in florida because they cant “afford” it.

                Fuck off with your right wing bullshit already. You aint masking half as well as you think you are with this project 2025 shit.

                • MSids@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  I’m definitely not a Republican. Sorry my take seems to have struck a chord with you, but I don’t think what I said was illogical.

            • Saledovil@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              So, in the post you’re replying to, it’s laid out how insurance wouldn’t work, and your reply is “Have you considered insurance?”

    • RBWells@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Even making it a state plan would work better in Florida than what we currently have. They let private insurers cherry pick the less risky houses, and cover whoever is left with the state plan. Then those private for profit insurers take the premiums, pay big bonuses to themselves, dissolve the company and leave, rinse and repeat. It’s a scam.

      • PlantJam@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        The cherry picking is usually a compromise to keep the companies operating in the state at all. If the state says a company must offer coverage for all perils for the entire state or leave entirely, it doesn’t take an underwriter to know Florida is a bad bet. There are similar carve outs for windstorm coverage in other gulf coast states, and I think for wildfire coverage on the west coast.

        Edit: I couldn’t find anything about a single peril state plan for California, but this article describes some of the recent insurance issues in the state: https://apnews.com/article/california-home-insurance-wildfire-risk-premiums-047bdfa514ce93dac83c82735a15554a

        • RBWells@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Florida is talking about a state windstorm pool (risk pooling, not gambling pool) like the national flood insurance. I guess that would be the compromise, but the insurance industry here really is plagued with fraud. The companies keep folding then coming back, I can only assume they are lining the pockets of the legislature with our money.

          In the years I’ve owned a house (about 30) I have paid them enough that if I’d banked it instead at a reasonable rate of return I could buy another house. But have made no claims. So they are charging like every house will be knocked down once every 30 years, I guess, but again, my previous house and that whole neighborhood from 1925 is still standing.

    • sakodak@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      Believe me, I’m with you. But a complication to this is that insurance companies employ millions of people. Nationalizing them needs to take all those livelihoods into account, and would be nearly impossible without going full on socialist (which I am completely for, I don’t think it’s feasible to continue a capitalist system when it is clearly breaking down and killing the planet while doing so.)