So, basically, it's your opinion that people who think ahead, and chose to live in places where they are not at "high risk" have to pay higher premiums so you can have the luxury of living where you live?
Why should they bear the burden of your choices?
Eventually, some company will step in and charge you a rate where they can make money without having to rip-off people who live in places where the scenry is not so pretty, but the hurricanes don't hit.
Yeah, you'll pay more. As you should.
My kind of people. You can trust people that admit that they're in it for the money. You can't trust those that claim otherwise.
I can't pick an choose with my customers why should they be able to.
Sure you can. You choose customers that want rods. Should the government also force you to provide bait, or should you only stick to rods where the big bucks are?
---------------------------------------------
Wrong-headed statement. The insurance companies are not choosing who their customers are, they are choosing what services to offer in what markets based on a business model that fulfills their first obligation; to increase value for the people who have entrusted their money to them - the shareholders. That is capitalism.
I've been with State Farm over thirty years. When I moved to Florida, they didn't want to sell me homeowner's insurance. I ended up getting SF from an agent across town whose quota wasn't full. There's a SF agency near where I live, but they can't take my business. It's screwy. I agree, though, that if a company won't sell any home insurance in Florida, why should we let them sell auto?
I don't understand. Are you saying that someone forces you to manufacture and sell fishing rods that lose money for you, because the customer might want them? How do they do that?
You should certainly be able to make only really expensive rods that only a few people would want to buy -- you have to SELL to anybody, but you don't have to OFFER FOR SALE whatever anybody WANTS to buy.
It is quite apparent that politicians, and many on this forum, have not even the most basic understanding of insurance, or that insurance is a business, not a charity.
If I own a home well inland in Florida (as in, much less likely to be blown down or washed away by a hurricane), why should I be forced to subsidize the risk that you incur by owning a house on the beach? You want a house on the beach, then you figure out how to insure it, either through self-insurance or by paying whatever premium an insurance company determines to be sufficient to cover the risk.
Insurance companies aren't interested in "policies that make big bucks". They are interested in finding the balance between premiums and risk that allow them to make a profit (in many cases, for their shareholders if they aren't a mutual). If their premiums are too high, no one will buy their policies. If they take on (or are FORCED to take on) bad risks, then their losses to claims will be too high, and they'll go under (which means, among other things, one LESS insurer in the marketplace, and a lot of people out of a job).
If you don't want to pay or cannot pay the premiums, it's your problem. Sell the house and move someplace where you CAN afford the insurance, or buy your house outright (so there's no mortgage company/bank insisting on you having insurance), and deal with the risk of losing it yourself, rather than making it everyone else's problem.
If insurance companies don't want to take on the risk (because it will generally mean they will LOSE money), all that is going to happen is that the insurers will leave the state altogether. It's pretty simple: if the state forces them to sell homeowner's insurance in order to be able to sell other types, the companies are going to calculate whether the expected losses on the homeowner's insurance is greater than the expected profits on the other lines.
They already did something like this in New Jersey back in the 1990's. The state said that all insurers selling health insurance in the state had to insure anyone who wanted coverage, had to cover all kinds of illnesses, had to accept any and all pre-existing conditions, etc. The result? Within two years, premiums had more than tripled, the number of insurers selling health insurance in the state was drastically reduced, and far MORE people were uninsured than before the state forced "guaranteed/universal coverage" on everyone. So, you had less competition among insurers, even MORE people not buying health insurance (because the premiums were so high), and those that were still insured paying ever higher costs (premiums) to cover the ever increasing number of people who couldn't afford the now ridiculously high premiums. Higher cost, less choice. That's a liberal result if I ever saw one.
Complaining about insurance companies not wanting to cover your house which is in a hurricane prone area is the same as the overweight, junk-food scarfing, cigarette smoking slob who insists that they should be given health insurance for the same premium as someone who watches what they eat, exercises, etc.
You do not have a consitutional right to insurance. If you support the state's contention that insurers should be forced to cover high-risk real-estate, one of three things WILL happen:
A) Most insurers will simply leave the state
B) Premiums for ALL insurance in the state (homeowner's, auto, etc.) will increase, resulting in fewer people being able to buy it, which in turn increases the premiums on those who can, which in turn drives even more people to be uninsured as premiums rise above their ability to pay
C) Companies will operate for a while at a loss, but eventually go under.
This can only end badly.
They ought to do the same with health insurance too.
I believe that some property should be uninsurable and if the owner wants to build on it he does so at his own risk. Flood zones, hurricane zones, mud-slide zones, etc. I am sick of reimbursing and subsidizing via increased insurance rates on all of us for these property owners. I would venture a guess that most of this type of property is owned by people who could afford the gamble the rest would not take the gamble.
Uh, free market ring a bell? Note my home state.
And, if the insurance premiums are capped by law, then forcing these companies to provide insurance in various markets in order to sell in other markets is no different than asking them to pay for the privilege of doing business in the state.
I would like to say such shenanigans is un-American, but then I remind myself that I live in a country in which government has a habit of subsidizing stadiums for professional sports franchies. So, I guess it's all **TOO** American.
The inmates, as they say, have indeed taken over the asylum!