this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2024
702 points (99.0% liked)

News

23367 readers
3634 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Wahots@pawb.social 96 points 5 months ago (2 children)

He knows democrats will bail him out because they do the right thing. Insurance agencies won't, though. The writing is on the wall when your insurance premiums skyrocket. Or worse, they drop you.

[–] 0110010001100010@lemmy.world 41 points 5 months ago (2 children)

How many insurance companies are actually left in Florida? I thought a good percentage of them have pulled out of the state entirely citing climate change. I know the premiums offered by the remaining companies have to be insane and it's not going to get any better.

[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 42 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Massive flooding of whole cities is simply not an insurable thing. Not even with all the reinsurers in the world can you pay out a city of millions. Most sane countries don't even try.

I live about 5m under sea level. Should de dikes breach and my polder flood (and I don't die horribly), the insurance company pays fuck all. The Dutch state has a giant mountain of cash sitting by for cases like that.

Of course, handing DeSantis a giant pile of emergency cash would just mean it instantly gets turned into bribes, so that wouldn't work for Florida.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 24 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Fun fact, the biggest point in Florida is currently 345 feet above sealevel. (it’s somewhere near the ballsack.)

The average is like 100

It’s a very bad state to ignore climate change in.

(Edit fixed the stats.)

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 26 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Coincidentally, I posted this in Political Memes yesterday-

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 11 points 5 months ago

Mar-A-Lago will become the first course exclusively comprised of 18 holes of water hazards.

[–] brbposting@sh.itjust.works 10 points 5 months ago

And the fraud was off the charts too. Roofers going door to door offering free roofs: “oh we can put in a claim…”

[–] Silentiea@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 points 5 months ago (2 children)

My insurance is dropping me because I had the audacity to try to use it. We had one claim that paid for some damage after a flood, one to pay for a water heater, and that's it. They decided that means we will probably ask again the next time something goes wrong, so why would they want to keep insuring us?

[–] Leg@lemmy.world 25 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Insurance is a scam, and it pisses me off that we're still tolerating their bullshit.

[–] Croquette@sh.itjust.works 12 points 5 months ago (2 children)

The concept is good. But the way it is run right now is just taking money and fight tooth and nail to pay as less as they can gey away with it.

[–] psivchaz@reddthat.com 12 points 5 months ago (3 children)

I would argue that the concept is flawed. The base idea is that you calculate statistics on how much you would be likely to have to pay out, then set premiums such that you'll always be ahead of payouts. Essentially, everyone pays so that the unfortunate few who need help can get money out of the common pool to help.

This is just taxes, basically. We already do this with fire departments and such. However, insurance adds a profit motive on top because it's a company, so the amount they take in must always be significantly higher than the amount they pay out. And if it's a publicly traded company then the amount they make above and beyond the amount they pay out must always be higher every quarter.

Like at a certain point, why not just do taxes and better disaster relief? As an added bonus, the government would have an extra incentive to care about things that may make the payouts increase, like poor infrastructure or climate change.

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 10 points 5 months ago

Many people are ideologically opposed to taxes and cooperation.

Reminds me of when right-wingers accidentally reinvent like buses or socialized health care under a different name.

In short, people are emotion driven and many of them are stupid on top of that.

[–] Croquette@sh.itjust.works 3 points 5 months ago

Taxes and disaster relief is a form of insurance, I agree with you there. When I say the concept is good, I mean people pooling a little bit in a big fund and then if something happens, the money is taken from the fund.

Insurance companies in the current system will nickel and dime you and deny your claims.

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

We already do this to an extent. It's called FEMA.

I am not against the government growing it's role in this sector, I just would be concerned about the perverse incentives and subsidizing the very wealthy. Why should I have to pay for your nice house on the river that exceeds 8x or more my annual gross income? You couldn't get private insurance because everyone knew this was a really bad place for a McMansion so you went to the government and got a free lunch. Also you are pretty much asking renters, who are usually poorer, to give money to homeowners who are usually richer.

Maybe if it was structured more like FDIC. The government provides insurance but there is a cap on how much. If you want more go to the free market.

[–] psivchaz@reddthat.com 1 points 5 months ago

I was mostly focused on how irritating it is that there's yet another way that basic necessities are monetized, rather than on the actual implementation details.

The government already tracks average home and property values for determining property tax and also for determining what is a reasonable mortgage for a given area. I was kind of thinking that it would just be in addition to property tax so based on your home value, so those with very large houses would already be paying proportionally more into it.

[–] Beetlejuice001@lemmy.wtf 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

If it weren’t a way to extract profit and the money stayed in a fund. It would secure society, Almost like social security. Just stop building in flood zones ffs.

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

Just stop building in flood zones ffs.

I don't want to live in the desert or badlands. Plus I thought we were trying to encourage people to move to cities so they wouldn't have to drive as much.

[–] Wahots@pawb.social 4 points 5 months ago (2 children)

I've had friends get fucked in the ass by their insurance company that refused to let them buy flood insurance even though they weren't particularly close to a body of water. When the "once in 500 years" (not) flood came, their house that they had owned for years was destroyed. Insurance that they paid for picked up none of their $100,000 damages.

They rebuilt it out of pocket and are selling it and moving to a place that is more ecologically stable. Fuck insurance companies.

[–] tyler@programming.dev 3 points 5 months ago

I mean…. It sounds like the insurance company knew it was going to flood. Being close to a body of water has nothing to do with likelihood to flood…

Seems like your friends should have moved before the flood, if they couldn’t get insurance for it. Why were they even searching for flood insurance if “they weren’t particularly close to a body of water”?

Sorry but this definitely sounds like your friends’ fault. They knew they needed the insurance because it would flood, the insurance company knew with high certainty it was going to flood, and then it did flood.

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

Same boat. I can't get flood insurance. All I can do is really hurt my life by moving or just accept that one day I am going to lose a lot of my stuff. I have accepted the latter.