[Manuel_D]

The most convincing argument I could make is that the government could step in and keep the insurance agencies solvent. Sort of a too-big-to-fail situation.

[paulddraper]

Ding ding.

Look at Hurricane Katrina. FEMA will not bail you out of a disaster that affects just you, but they will step in for one that affects lots of people.

Needs to hit the news cycle.

Of course, that’s probably still an argument for dropping insurance…

[shaftway]

Two years ago I'd agree with you. Today I'd be concerned that an executive order would direct FEMA not to help out of spite against CA politics. I can already hear the arguments, blaming us for living in a high risk area.

[paulddraper]

> I can already hear the arguments, blaming us for living in a high risk area.

That argument is true though.

Build your house on the beach, a flood zone, top of a cliff, wherever. And insure it.

But don't expect the taxpayer to subsidize your risk. (Though I suspect they are...)