Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by semicolon_storm 1115 days ago
The situation sucks, but their continuing to live there and be insured has to be subsidized by somebody somewhere. The area is clearly insanely risky to the point where no premium justifies offering coverage.

If coverage was offered, who should be the one subsidizing it? Private companies? No way, they never would. Government? That's just a regressive policy funneling money to a relative well-off (homeowners) group of people.
3 comments
justinator 1115 days ago
>The area is clearly insanely risky to the point where no premium justifies offering coverage

Perhaps this was lost, but areas where insurance companies are deeming too risky to live is growing given climate change is real and weather patterns are shifting - sometimes drastically - to create more powerful storms.

This is just going to continue to happen in a game of Russian Roulette.

link
bushbaba 1115 days ago
There’s always a premium. Even if 30% of home value per year. The issue is the fair price for risk isn’t something people would want to ever pay.
link
frumper 1115 days ago
Nor should they. If they could pay that ridiculous rate then they wouldn’t have a problem not having insurance. You’re presenting it as someone that buys a 300k house and gets a $1500/mo mortgage doesn’t “want” to pay $8500/mo in home insurance.
link
xref 1114 days ago
It’s better insurance just isn’t available at any price. You can know going into the purchase that the home will be uninsurable so your financial picture needs to account for that.

Also in general I don’t believe you can get a mortgage without home insurance? So people buying these properties would have to come in cash.

link
justinator 1115 days ago
>but their continuing to live there and be insured has to be subsidized by somebody somewhere

I think insurance companies cover customers because the customers pay for the insurance.

You're saying that because profits for insurance companies aren't at the level the insurance companies want, that they can say - because it's illegal to own an uninsured home, where people can and can not live?

That seems like an overreach of power of a private company.

link