had a feeling this article was just going to describe insurance companies pricing risk appropriately and boy howdy was I right.
Conversation
ignoring briefly that "low risk people pay a little extra to cover high risk people" is how insurance works as a concept, your house being next to an unburned area on a mountain that regularly burns down means it gets higher risk every single year there isn't a fire!!!
update: a wildfire started almost exactly where this house is located about twenty minutes ago (currently named the Close Fire)
if you found it by search, the fire is now the Eaton Fire, use that term
It’s amazing that the writer thought “this area at the urban-wildland interface in LA County hasn’t had a fire in 30 years” could be used to argue that it was fireproof and not that the fuel burden was extremely high
guess what part of Los Angeles was ground zero for a wildfire today
Every so often you see the sentiment bandied around here that if you didn’t make a claim on your car/home insurance, you should get your premiums back.
Same logic.
After last week people were saying "oh florida is going to be uninsurable", as if the US Government wouldn't move heaven and earth and spend whatever required to ensure that people living in suburban sprawl never experience any inconvenience
And wow do they have planning incentives wrong. Public planning is a political process and swayed by rich homeowners. Self-interested private insurers are interested in actual risks, not politicized risks.
I've won my last dozen games of russian roulette. why do they want to raise my life insurance premiums?
It’s a bit weird if they increased premiums 4x in one year. Maybe they are not offering a ‘fair’ price now because they don’t want excessive exposure in a single region, but if you can’t get a better price from a different insurer…
It's interesting when people think insurance should be priced strictly according to risk and when the low risk should subsidize the high risk. I'm guessing the article's writer doesn't think people and groups that use more health care should have to pay more.
See also Kuttner's prescient piece on the stock market's slow collapse over the past two also a half years:
"last had a wildfire 30 years ago"
Should read as overdue, not proven safe
Sigh. In 2024 every example of an increasing price is inflation or price gouging and the underlying problem is always greed. We can help poor people without breaking markets. We should. But helping this lady lower the insurance cost on her 2 million dollar home seems off target.
The insurance commission has FULL authority over the rates in California. The rates applied broadly instead of to the at risk areas is the rate increase the commissioner approved. The failure has occurred, but the author has failed to identify the point of failure.
surprise surprise, the insurance companies spend a fuck ton of money on climate modeling
You people are fucking ghouls. Genuinly why do you constantly suck the dicks of companies that would burn you and your family alive for a dollar?