this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2023
177 points (97.3% liked)

politics

19107 readers
2746 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

...To handle massive payout events like [Hurricane] Andrew, insurance companies sell policies across different markets—historically, a hurricane wasn’t hitting Florida in the same month a wildfire wiped out a town in California. They themselves also pay for insurance, a financial instrument called reinsurance that helps distribute risk across geographic regions. Reinsurance availability remains a major driver of what insurance you can buy—and how much it costs.

But as climate change intensifies extreme weather and claims pile up, this system has been thrown into disarray. Insured losses from natural disasters in the US now routinely approach $100 billion a year, compared to $4.6 billion in 2000. As a result, the average homeowner has seen their premiums spike 21 percent since 2015. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the states most likely to have disasters—like Texas and Florida—have some of the most expensive insurance rates. That means ever more people are forgoing coverage, leaving them vulnerable and driving prices even higher as the number of people paying premiums and sharing risk shrinks.

This vicious cycle also increases reinsurers’ rates. Reinsurers globally raised prices for property insurers by 37 percent in 2023, contributing to insurance companies pulling back from risky states like California and Florida. “As events are getting bigger and more costly, that has raised the prices of reinsurance in those areas,” said Carolyn Kousky, the associate vice president for economics and policy at the Environmental Defense Fund, who studies insurance. “It’s called the hardening of the market.”

In a worst-case scenario, this all leads to a massive stranded asset problem: Premiums get so high that property values plummet, families’ investments dissipate, and banks are stuck holding what’s left.

More simply, the global process for handling life’s risks is breaking down, leaving those who can least afford it unprotected.

all 39 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 57 points 1 year ago (9 children)

Yeah, let's worry about insurance and not the climate change itself.

[–] AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world 51 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

If the capitalists had sane priorities, we wouldn't be in this situation. The capitalists knew what they were doing to the climate through their own experts, and not only covered it up for decades, but used their endless wealth to wage a propaganda war to discredit outside scientists who came to the same conclusions.

Humanity's epitaph should truly be that line from that famous comic, I'd like it to be made into a skyscraper sized titanium tombstone before the end, for any passing or newly evolved sapient species to know us by the only thing that we ever cared about:

"Here lies Humanity.

Sure, we destroyed ourselves eyes wide open, but for one glorious moment in time, we created a lot of value for shareholders!"

[–] Saracha@lemmy.world 34 points 1 year ago

Well climate change was always going to be a crisis that was ignored until it started hitting people's pocketbooks.

[–] spaceghoti@lemmy.one 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's not the takeaway I got from this. Opposition to climate change reform was always rooted in money. We were told the expense was unnecessary or just too much. Now we see that it's too expensive to ignore.

[–] OrteilGenou@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

That's a good take

[–] foggy@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

Won't someone PLEASE think of the shareholders?!

[–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Capitalism only knows how to care about money.

[–] pingveno@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

This is why we need a rebated carbon tax immediately. Pricing carbon emission equivalents into products is how we subtly signal to everyone along a supply chain "buy this not that".

As an aside, "Environmental, Social, and Governance" (ESG) investment is a way to make investments that at least purport to be socially conscious. One could make the case that they are in the company's self interest, since companies don't exist in a vacuum. They have employees, suppliers, customers, etc. that all get hurt when any of those three causes is weakened.

Edit: The argument about the company's self interest is important because people like CEO's and fund managers have a fiduciary duty towards the company or wealth they manage. They must at least be able to make an argument that they believe themselves to be acting in their clients' best financial interest.

[–] Furedadmins@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Except it just gets passed right along to to consumers. Have to actually hit shareholders directly somehow. Tax the shares in a manner that is tied to the share and not the company.

[–] pingveno@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

That's part of the point, that it gets passed to consumers. The consumer gets nudged towards lower carbon products. The rebate is there to offset the cost of the carbon tax that is baked into goods and services. It is evenly split between everyone so that people who cause fewer carbon emissions than average will see a net benefit.

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 7 points 1 year ago

It is probably the thing that will start to trigger changes in policy. Not good changes, but some changes.

For instance, the Florida State government has become the insurer of last resort for a lot homes. It may get to a point where a bad hurricane season could bankrupt the state.

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 5 points 1 year ago

It's gonna be the first real pain a lot of people feel from climate change.

[–] pingveno@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

We should worry about both climate change and resilience. Yeah, there are the people who want to ignore climate change because getting off their ass and doing something about it would be inconvenient. But at the same time, it is here and severe. We need to acknowledge its effects and work to deal with the ramifications for both humans and the environment.

[–] shiftenter@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

That means ever more people are forgoing coverage, leaving them vulnerable and driving prices even higher as the number of people paying premiums and sharing risk shrinks.

I agree with your sentiment. But this is point to focus on. Average people are getting priced out.

[–] cedarmesa@lemmy.world 50 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)
[–] Acters@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

What should I do about vehicle insurance? If I want to self insure in my state, I'll need to have 10 or more(some states require 25 or 26) vehicles registered in my name and prove I am "financially capable" to the motor vehicle department based on their demands. I would basically be forced to be wealthy already or run my own insurance scheme in-house for family or friends, and have ownership of the vehicles, like some pseudo rental company.

Some states, like California, only require 1 vehicle and 35000 in cash in a savings account to get self insurance. Maybe I should move to another state. Rich people have so many chances not to pay these rent/subscription traps that constantly drain your income.

[–] damnthefilibuster@lemmy.world 38 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The jump from 4.6 billion to 100 billion in 23 years is just… mind blowing.

[–] spankinspinach@sh.itjust.works 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Exponential increase in climate disasters leads to exponential increase in costs... Yup, that tracks

(Fully agree, that's ballistic)

[–] damnthefilibuster@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

How dare you agree with me on the interwebs?? /s

[–] perviouslyiner@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The premiums going up 37% seems low if the payouts went up by more than 2000%

[–] damnthefilibuster@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Shhh. Don’t tell the insurance firms they’ve been undercharging people.

[–] itsonlygeorge@reddthat.com 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Housing should never have been turned into an investment platform. Have we learned nothing from 2008?

[–] spaceghoti@lemmy.one 6 points 1 year ago

Only how to gamble.

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Disaster coupled with the crazy rising costs of materials and labor. What might have been a $15k roof replacement now costs $20k+ or more depending on demand and materials availability.

[–] jtk@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Just a 15 to 20K jump? Where the fuck are you living? I want to go to there.

Shingles only. Tarpaper.

[–] twisted28@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

More like 15 to 30

[–] skybreaker@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Good. Insurance is a scam and should die a horrible death.

[–] MustrumR@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

Insurance companies and avoiding to pay what they owe for whatever reason. What an iconic duo.

Just invest money and find some friends instead. Insurance will deny your claim and force you to fight in court or fuck off when you are at your lowest.

[–] sturmblast@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I spent my whole life for the most part living in the midwest in the USA and I always wanted to move to a coastal state to enjoy the ocean. once I got older and I realized how bad of an idea that was when it came to safety and economics, I have grown to realize how fortunate I am to be living in the midwest with what climate change is looking to bring us.

[–] spaceghoti@lemmy.one 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The thunderstorms and tornados in the Midwest are going to get worse and reach farther than before. I don't remember hearing about as many twisters touching down in Colorado as we had this year, although that could be my confirmation bias talking.

[–] sturmblast@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sure, but that's a lot easier to deal with vs hurricanes, rising water levels, and floods

[–] spaceghoti@lemmy.one 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You think the Midwest won't get flooding, especially among water ways? My old insurance company has already pulled out of the Colorado market because of increased risk of hail and fire.

[–] sturmblast@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Coastal flooding vs lake flooding

[–] spaceghoti@lemmy.one 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ask the residents along the Mississippi how less devastating it can be when it floods.

[–] sturmblast@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I mean I live on lake Michigan it's not like I'm ignorant of this