• werefreeatlast@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 month ago

    And we should demand that insurers stop paying for shit that we could predict. They should fill Florida with recyclable stuff as a big landfill and with rocks, then just drop a few invasive tree species, elephants, lions etc and put a big fence around the place. Then each year we would only need to rescue animals and not people. Rescuing animals is far more inconsequential. Nobody cares if the animals are homeless, but everyone hates homeless people.

    • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 month ago

      Insurers have this in their pricing. Which is why you see some withdrawing completely, some offer stripped insurance that won’t cover this and the ones that will still offer hurricane coverage will do so at prices that will cover their exposure… and that will be prohibitively expensive for most.

    • AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Insurance exists to pay out. We don’t need to give them more reasons to deny people. Making laws to prevent rebuilding is the real answer.

      • werefreeatlast@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 month ago

        I’m being sarcastic ofcourse. Let me get my beer out of the fridge…who put this elephant 🐘 in here! I’ve told you guys to never put an elephant in the fridge when there’s already a giraffe 🦒 in there! LOL.

        Florida was interesting to briefly visit. But at this cost, we might as well give it back to nature.

    • orcrist@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      I think we want the opposite of that. We want insurers to definitely pay out if they sold policies. We don’t want them to collect premiums and then find shady ways to deny payment. If they decide to leave the market entirely, good for them, but as long as they’re selling, we should insist that they pony up the payments.

      • werefreeatlast@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Agreed. If they signed a policy they should pay for the loss. It should be an actual risk that we are paying them to ensure won’t happen…so if it does, then they should pay for it. And if it doesn’t make sense, they should not insure you. But then it would be good to not actually require insurance for home ownership. I would love to do that in case I don’t actually care if the place gets hit by a hurricane. That incentive pushes me to design my house such that it can survive with little to no monetary loss to myself.