I don't think point B is valid. Following your reasoning, the industry would also think that health insurances are a bad idea because they would promote an unhealthy livestyle.

That's one of the arguments for high deductibles. The reverse promotes frivolous trips to the doctor.

Being sick is it's own deterrent. However, people like living near water and it's often cheaper in the short term.

> it tends to all be due at the same time requiring a very large fund.

i don't quite see that.

if the flood insurer covered a broad variety of geographically dispersed areas across North America, or even just the US, would that be true?

The company would have to be huge to pull it off. One event like what happened in Houston could easily wipe out a big chunk of any fund they could amass. That kind of diversity could also be a problem if there are shared waterways, think back to the Mississippi/Missouri flood from 1993. I'm seeing 15 billion as the damages there, which is a large percentage of the "cash" pile Apple is claimed to have.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Flood_of_1993

Edit: fix an extraneous wording mistake.

What does this have to do with Apple? Is that just a reference to them hoarding large amounts of cash or are they in the reinsurance business?

I believe it's a reference to the fact that even large companies, Apple is $800b, don't have all that cash on hand. To convert $15b into cash takes time. Disaster victims can't exactly pay for hotels or buy foods with bonds or stock certificates.

btw, Apple has far more than $15 billion in its cash pile. it's over $250 billion by some accounts

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/02/apples-cash-hoard-swells-to-...

I was using them as an example of a large company that would be reasonably familiar to the audience here.