LA County residence spent three decades covering their homes in dry vegetation and garbage, and haven’t Cut a single fire break, built one new reservoir, or done one controlled burnin my lifetime, now I have to pay for it? How does that make sense?
Private insurance works very well as long as states don't interfere, as they have in CA. Places that are high risk should pay a very high price (beachfront FL, hillsides in CA). Of people don't want to pay that cost, they should not build in those locations. The Federal government is the last place we should look for help, they don't have the capacity or resources for this.
100% agree. Homes should never be an investment tool. We need a federal program that builds enough new homes to close the gap of housing needs, make them all purchasable in full in 5 years scaling with income. Place limitations on these homes so they cannot be owned as multiples by any individual nor purchasable by commercial businesses. Ensure that anyone owning additional homes and those living in homes that are much larger (ie mcmansions) pay punitively high taxes for utilizing resources far outside their need. Solving the housing crisis is all about the will to ensure that home ownership is the goal for individuals not whether they can cash in on a house sale. It’s disgusting how shut out of the market people are due to the market conditions we are seeing now. A cardboard box is so cal is about $800k yes wages have been stagnant for 50+ years now.
Ok so you can and should have many important infrastructure and build requirements to reduce risk however many countries have national emergency funding that homeowners contribute to and can access in an emergency. It’s a no-brainer and really we need to cut the insurance business out of basic coverage for anything. Insurance should only be supplemental and rare for those with homes or assets that are far exceeding the average home cost for a given area. Really guys this has been solved elsewhere and we have no excuse but laziness and greed for how dysfunctional the US system is.
Sure, yeah, the government could create a nuanced, thoughtful overlapping set of incentives and rules, and the public could be capable of using them. I could also ride a unicorn to Mt. Everest.
It's not just home insurance, it also building permits. If the claim is successful, it'll take years to get a building permit. In the meantime your land may become a trailer park for squatters
The Senate report made it clear: insurers are dropping policies everywhere in the US, in all 50 states. And not only in coastal cities, but even whole towns in the middle of Iowa (like Mashalltown) are becoming uninsurable or with sky-high premiums. That's why you need a national insurance system, to distribute the risks though the entire country instead of concentrated pools.
@@EduardoEscarez Insurance rates are high in Iowa and Kansas because they're in tornado alley. They're also high in flood prone areas. If you make bad decision in locating, building, and maintaining your home, your insurance costs should reflect your risk.
@@EduardoEscarez If you want to build or own a home around Lake Tahoe with 100 foot pines all around your house, that's your choice, but you know the risk and you pay the price.
@@needmorecowbell6895 I'm not denying that, people should pay insurance correlated with risks. The problem is that many places are becoming disaster-prone places, and that is driving insurance drops across the entire country. So the idea of a national insurance is to spread the risks across a large pool of people, instead of the actual system that could end in an entire meltdown of the US economy like in 2008 (not my words, but of the Senate's report).
@@EduardoEscarez But if no one will sell you an insurance policy, what's that telling you about your risk? Don't build there and don't live there. I don't think you can get a mortgage without home insurance. You're a cash buyer. If you want to build a multimillion dollar home at Lake Tahoe and live there without insurance, good on you for literally having money to burn. But you know the risk.
Because flood insurance has worked so well. Massive urban fires are not new. Major cities have long had catastrophic fires. Think of Chicago, London, San Francisco, New York (1835), etc. Fire insurance emerged largely in response to these fires, and insurance companies enforced building standards and paid firefighters to save the buildings they insured. Government has interfered with this free market, and prohibited insurers from setting rates which will cover the risk. Allow insurers to compete freely, and risk will be accounted for. All government should do is ensure insurers have sufficient reserves.
I must disagree vehemently with this proposed idea. Pooling risk generally helps lower rates for those in higher risk situations, but raises the costs overall. Private Insurers are far from perfect (ask anyone who's had to make a substantial claim), but they are LEAPS AND BOUNDS better than a massive Federalized system of "Catastrophic Disaster" insurance. It would only be another tax, poorly administrated by a large organization with an unreasonable amount of overhead costs. If one is inclined to disagree, I might ask them to point to any well administered and efficient Federal system... I'm afraid there are none. I also might ask folks how long it took them to settle their last big insurance claim with their private insurer? It was excruciating, I expect? Do we really think that a Federally managed system would be faster and easier? I live in the foothills of California, east of Sacramento, a very high risk area for wildfire. My fire insurance is a burden, but not as big of a burden as it would be be forced into paying yet another tax so that I might have "affordable" wildfire coverage. Right now, I have the choice to move to an area that isn't high risk. I could move to Vermont or Upstate New York and avoid this costly insurance... if we adopted this National Catastrophic insurance, I would have no choice at all. Please, we must all be allowed to make choices and let nature and economics take it's course. If it is too dangerous and costly for me to live in this area of California, I don't want my friends in Vermont to pay for my choices. Someday, my fire insurance under the California FAIR plan (my only option in this area) may be too costly to allow me to live here on my income; if that becomes the reality, let it be so and I will accept it. Let us have individual responsibility and be free.
This thinking is the very definition of selfishness. Speaking as someone who has had a home saved due to a national disaster relief program that I paid into as a homeowner it works beautifully. Just because you think you are “free” in a cutthroat system doesn’t mean you have coverage when disaster strikes. Ask anyone who has been forced to declare medical bankruptcy in the US. Insurance is a lie.
@@r8chlletters I feel you! I know folks who were saved by Federal programs (my own parents included). But... I'm just saying it isn't the best way to do it. There are others in this world to help those of us in need besides a massively wasteful system. It really is NOT a good way for us all to go. I'm just asking for the chance to choose, that's all. I admit, I'm probably extreme; I also would opt out of Social Security if I could, LoL!
No thanks I’m not going to subsidize California’s 10mm homes built in fire zones. Maybe the payout could be fixed for each victim and not be tied to actual dollar amount of damage.
Citing France Spain and New Zealand for their natural disaster insurance programs makes you look like an unintelligent person. None of the countries are prone to tornadoes, hurricanes, or wildfires like the US is.
You keep banging on that this is climate change causing these fires, when these fires are being set by people, not to mention the poor forestry management that doesn't allow for controlled burns, etc..
No you need to price high risk areas correctly. You shouldn’t subsidize high risk areas.
Just another way of socialising losses and giving more money to private businesses. Don’t trust NYT
LA County residence spent three decades covering their homes in dry vegetation and garbage, and haven’t Cut a single fire break, built one new reservoir, or done one controlled burnin my lifetime, now I have to pay for it? How does that make sense?
Private insurance works very well as long as states don't interfere, as they have in CA. Places that are high risk should pay a very high price (beachfront FL, hillsides in CA). Of people don't want to pay that cost, they should not build in those locations. The Federal government is the last place we should look for help, they don't have the capacity or resources for this.
What about replacing the idea of housing as an investment tool
100% agree. Homes should never be an investment tool. We need a federal program that builds enough new homes to close the gap of housing needs, make them all purchasable in full in 5 years scaling with income. Place limitations on these homes so they cannot be owned as multiples by any individual nor purchasable by commercial businesses. Ensure that anyone owning additional homes and those living in homes that are much larger (ie mcmansions) pay punitively high taxes for utilizing resources far outside their need. Solving the housing crisis is all about the will to ensure that home ownership is the goal for individuals not whether they can cash in on a house sale. It’s disgusting how shut out of the market people are due to the market conditions we are seeing now. A cardboard box is so cal is about $800k yes wages have been stagnant for 50+ years now.
Ok so you can and should have many important infrastructure and build requirements to reduce risk however many countries have national emergency funding that homeowners contribute to and can access in an emergency. It’s a no-brainer and really we need to cut the insurance business out of basic coverage for anything. Insurance should only be supplemental and rare for those with homes or assets that are far exceeding the average home cost for a given area. Really guys this has been solved elsewhere and we have no excuse but laziness and greed for how dysfunctional the US system is.
Sure, yeah, the government could create a nuanced, thoughtful overlapping set of incentives and rules, and the public could be capable of using them. I could also ride a unicorn to Mt. Everest.
Or don't live in these areas move
It's not just home insurance, it also building permits. If the claim is successful, it'll take years to get a building permit. In the meantime your land may become a trailer park for squatters
So true! And the Planning and Zoning regulations!
So taxpayers pay for the losses and private insurance companies keep the gains??
God forbid they don't make a profit
Ah yes, Making middle america absorb the risk of/pay for those living in high risk areas because... "reasons". My favorite policies
Socialize and subsidise insurance for Blue States, most NYT thing ever.
The Senate report made it clear: insurers are dropping policies everywhere in the US, in all 50 states. And not only in coastal cities, but even whole towns in the middle of Iowa (like Mashalltown) are becoming uninsurable or with sky-high premiums.
That's why you need a national insurance system, to distribute the risks though the entire country instead of concentrated pools.
@@EduardoEscarez Insurance rates are high in Iowa and Kansas because they're in tornado alley. They're also high in flood prone areas. If you make bad decision in locating, building, and maintaining your home, your insurance costs should reflect your risk.
@@EduardoEscarez If you want to build or own a home around Lake Tahoe with 100 foot pines all around your house, that's your choice, but you know the risk and you pay the price.
@@needmorecowbell6895 I'm not denying that, people should pay insurance correlated with risks. The problem is that many places are becoming disaster-prone places, and that is driving insurance drops across the entire country.
So the idea of a national insurance is to spread the risks across a large pool of people, instead of the actual system that could end in an entire meltdown of the US economy like in 2008 (not my words, but of the Senate's report).
@@EduardoEscarez But if no one will sell you an insurance policy, what's that telling you about your risk? Don't build there and don't live there. I don't think you can get a mortgage without home insurance. You're a cash buyer. If you want to build a multimillion dollar home at Lake Tahoe and live there without insurance, good on you for literally having money to burn. But you know the risk.
Because flood insurance has worked so well. Massive urban fires are not new. Major cities have long had catastrophic fires. Think of Chicago, London, San Francisco, New York (1835), etc. Fire insurance emerged largely in response to these fires, and insurance companies enforced building standards and paid firefighters to save the buildings they insured. Government has interfered with this free market, and prohibited insurers from setting rates which will cover the risk. Allow insurers to compete freely, and risk will be accounted for. All government should do is ensure insurers have sufficient reserves.
I must disagree vehemently with this proposed idea. Pooling risk generally helps lower rates for those in higher risk situations, but raises the costs overall. Private Insurers are far from perfect (ask anyone who's had to make a substantial claim), but they are LEAPS AND BOUNDS better than a massive Federalized system of "Catastrophic Disaster" insurance. It would only be another tax, poorly administrated by a large organization with an unreasonable amount of overhead costs. If one is inclined to disagree, I might ask them to point to any well administered and efficient Federal system... I'm afraid there are none. I also might ask folks how long it took them to settle their last big insurance claim with their private insurer? It was excruciating, I expect? Do we really think that a Federally managed system would be faster and easier? I live in the foothills of California, east of Sacramento, a very high risk area for wildfire. My fire insurance is a burden, but not as big of a burden as it would be be forced into paying yet another tax so that I might have "affordable" wildfire coverage. Right now, I have the choice to move to an area that isn't high risk. I could move to Vermont or Upstate New York and avoid this costly insurance... if we adopted this National Catastrophic insurance, I would have no choice at all. Please, we must all be allowed to make choices and let nature and economics take it's course. If it is too dangerous and costly for me to live in this area of California, I don't want my friends in Vermont to pay for my choices. Someday, my fire insurance under the California FAIR plan (my only option in this area) may be too costly to allow me to live here on my income; if that becomes the reality, let it be so and I will accept it. Let us have individual responsibility and be free.
This thinking is the very definition of selfishness. Speaking as someone who has had a home saved due to a national disaster relief program that I paid into as a homeowner it works beautifully. Just because you think you are “free” in a cutthroat system doesn’t mean you have coverage when disaster strikes. Ask anyone who has been forced to declare medical bankruptcy in the US. Insurance is a lie.
@@r8chlletters I feel you! I know folks who were saved by Federal programs (my own parents included). But... I'm just saying it isn't the best way to do it. There are others in this world to help those of us in need besides a massively wasteful system. It really is NOT a good way for us all to go. I'm just asking for the chance to choose, that's all. I admit, I'm probably extreme; I also would opt out of Social Security if I could, LoL!
Why not pay the taxpayers' money?
No thanks I’m not going to subsidize California’s 10mm homes built in fire zones. Maybe the payout could be fixed for each victim and not be tied to actual dollar amount of damage.
Climate change is the only one reason I heard here, and it is only half of the problem.
Citizens not consumer
Uh oh.
More socialism, because that works SOOOOO well...
Citing France Spain and New Zealand for their natural disaster insurance programs makes you look like an unintelligent person. None of the countries are prone to tornadoes, hurricanes, or wildfires like the US is.
You keep banging on that this is climate change causing these fires, when these fires are being set by people, not to mention the poor forestry management that doesn't allow for controlled burns, etc..