|
|
|
|
|
|
by DoreenMichele
787 days ago
|
|
|
Woah, I don't have any idea why you are characterizing my remarks as "sharing all these feel good sentiments." Society is supposed to help individuals thrive so society thrives. That's how a sane culture works. Figuring out where to draw the line between benefits to individuals that help society thrive versus benefits to individuals that undermine society is what gets argued over if you want a functional world. Dog-eat-dog, screw you, up yours, not my problem attitudes fundamentally end up coming back to bite people. If that's where you are at currently: Sorry you got burned or whatever. But it's not a mental framing that fosters good business. I'm done with this discussion. |
|
|
Perhaps the feel good statement comes off inflammatory but everything you said are nice ideas but lack how it actually get implemented. I am only suggesting that I am not sure having the government underwrite risk is a good idea, these funds are often underfunded and not underwriting the actual cost of loss correctly. It is funny because I don’t like the current constructs of health insurance in America but I think other forms of insurance work. On that side I think a form of a single payer system would work better, probably what you envision but not shared is like.
Again my point is simply that I think it can make sense for the government to underwrite if it requires moving those individuals out and not providing coverage to new homes that are in a flood zone. But I don’t think economically it works out going forward to just cover everything and anything.