In Australia the insurance council came out with a report that shows climate impact has tripled the over last 3 decades as a percentage of gdp, the last five years has had an average over twice the previous 3 decades in insurance payouts. If insurers profit on calm times and worldwide properties are becoming uninsurable, risk is increasing and costs for repairs are suffering from inflation, I wouldn't want to be an insurer or the customer of one as all the costs get pushed onto less people.
I think these kinds of reactions from insurance companies is logical for them to take, but it does show how private insurance as a system is not helping people
I mean, it's a crappy situation no matter how you slice it. Climate change is making some areas unfit for our current standard of habitation. We can't afford to build and rebuild in a place that gets utterly destroyed every 15 years.
Insurance as a system is meant to mitigate exceptional events, not common ones. If you want to insure against common events, be prepared for your premium to be very, very high. So the issue isn't that the insurers don't do what they are meant to do, but instead the home owners insisting to build where it's not fit for residence.
Excellent discussion. I wonder if there could be some mechanism to incentivise not rebuilding in disaster-prone areas, or requiring hurricane/wildfire/etc proof construction.
The incentive is to not live there. It is a choice and I fully object to paying for a rebuild of a hurricane destroyed house or paying someone not to rebuild.
@@elizabethpears307 I certainly agree that it's foolish to keep building the same house on a spot where it gets blown over again and again. There are buildings that are more than capable of withstanding a hurricane with minimal damage, but people don't build those as homes. I'm not entirely sure why.
Good topic. He cuts it up into understandable pieces that I can digest.
In Australia the insurance council came out with a report that shows climate impact has tripled the over last 3 decades as a percentage of gdp, the last five years has had an average over twice the previous 3 decades in insurance payouts.
If insurers profit on calm times and worldwide properties are becoming uninsurable, risk is increasing and costs for repairs are suffering from inflation, I wouldn't want to be an insurer or the customer of one as all the costs get pushed onto less people.
I think these kinds of reactions from insurance companies is logical for them to take, but it does show how private insurance as a system is not helping people
I mean, it's a crappy situation no matter how you slice it. Climate change is making some areas unfit for our current standard of habitation. We can't afford to build and rebuild in a place that gets utterly destroyed every 15 years.
Insurance as a system is meant to mitigate exceptional events, not common ones. If you want to insure against common events, be prepared for your premium to be very, very high.
So the issue isn't that the insurers don't do what they are meant to do, but instead the home owners insisting to build where it's not fit for residence.
Excellent discussion. I wonder if there could be some mechanism to incentivise not rebuilding in disaster-prone areas, or requiring hurricane/wildfire/etc proof construction.
The incentive is to not live there. It is a choice and I fully object to paying for a rebuild of a hurricane destroyed house or paying someone not to rebuild.
@@elizabethpears307 I certainly agree that it's foolish to keep building the same house on a spot where it gets blown over again and again.
There are buildings that are more than capable of withstanding a hurricane with minimal damage, but people don't build those as homes. I'm not entirely sure why.
So what happens when the state run home insurance proves financially burdensome/insolvent?
raise taxes and blame the other political side
Don't build in disaster zones lmao
Our region wasn’t a disaster zone when we bought the house. But fires are frequent now