You responded with: The fact that you, or others find the cost of the premiums oppressive, bothersome and possibly unaffordable doesn't mean that they aren't justified.
The fact that you didn't read and understand what I wrote means that you do NOT understand the problem.One would think that a good doctor not only listens to what the patient says but also what the patient means to say or even doesn't say. But you definately have to listen and correctly interpret what the patient DOES say!
The problem that I'm talking about isn't the increased rates, it is what may eventually happen if enough people cannot or will not pay those rates.
In your rush to prescribe your treatement of Econ 101, you didn't even address one of the bigger problems that I described, those that CANNOT obtain insurance, not because of the actual risk but because the companies won't insure non-homesteaded and secondary resident properties.
I listened to an investor describe that his millions invested in rental properies (houses and apartments) will soon become non insurable. What does he do if he cannot obtain adequate insurance and cannot sell because prospective buyers face the same problem?
What do regular home owners, expecially those without a great deal of equity do if they cannot obtain or cannot afford insurance and cannot sell?
So what happens to communities when a substantial portion of the community cannot remain in business and the residents cannot live there?
What happens to the state when this happens statewide?
That, good doctor, is the problem.
This isn't happening to just a handfull of beach residents in fancy beach bungalows or condos. It is happening to those of us in modest ranch homes miles inland, too.
And, the problem IS the government and the regulations they have enacted. They have mandated coverage even for those that own their homes free and clear, regulated rate increases and now are threatening to drive more carriers out of the state who might refuse to do what the legislature wants, even if they find it unwise. I've read multiple articles about the problem, because as an ex-Florida resident who has great interest in eventually returning after I retire, I follow this closely...not to mention that my daughter will probably be in Gainesville next year at UFL and I'm debating buying a condo or something rather than paying for a dorm.
Here are some articles that describe some of the main problems:
http://www.insurancenewsnet.com/article.asp?a=top_pc&id=74189
Here's an excerpt:
Gelber said he is pleased the House isn't going along with Senate provisions to allow homeowners to take on larger deductibles and to buy less coverage than what would be needed to rebuild after a major storm, and even go without any windstorm insurance if they have paid off their mortgages. Although such changes would reduce premiums, they also would mean homeowners would take on more risk, Gelber said. If their homes were destroyed, they would have to pay bigger shares of the costs to rebuild.
Here's another that deals with the OIR and rate increases which need to be approved:
http://www.foley.com/publications/pub_detail.aspx?pubid=3430
Ratemaking: To the extent an insurer has exposed its capital to the risk of hurricane loss in lieu of procuring reinsurance, the insurer is entitled to a reasonable rate of return commensurate with the risk. Beginning July 1, 2007, in any area the Florida OIR determines to be competitive, a property insurer may increase rates by up to 10 percent in any rating territory (subject to a five percent statewide cap) without being subject to disapproval as excessive or unfairly discriminatory.
Let's see....regulate rate increases, mandate everyone have certain coverages...that's a bad combination in and of itself, and this original article we were all responding to was a additional threat from the FL gov't to further reduce the insurance options available by potentially driving more carriers out of the state....Next we'll hear about the car insurance crisis in FL since no one will be offering that either. Yet, some on this thread are cheering the FL legislature on in this course of insanity....because, well, their property insurance rates are impinging on their lifestyle, or are 'unavailable'.
The answer is (since you apparently couldn't deduct it from my prior post) to get the government OUT of the insurance business other than to verify the financial strength of the companies/individuals that are offering insurance products in the state, and let individuals decide what coverage they want to pay for, and the insurers decide what rates they need to assume the risk. This will go a long way toward restoring the availability of insurance carriers AND increasing competition for lower rates (they may not be as low as you and others want or feel is 'reasonable', but at least you'll have options).
I understand the problem, and also that this may be catastrophic to FL real estate values and it's economy...but it's a problem that is due in large part to the same government that so many are flocking to for a solution now....and the reality is that the government can do nothing other than attempt to the solve the problem with some kind of income redistribution scheme...which will happen just as soon as the benevolent 'state' ends up assuming all or most of the risk of a natural catastrophe. You know who is going to pay for that, right?