It’s what I like about the insurance industry: it cares not for opinions and moods and politics because it is betting with cash. No amount of climate denial changes the math on a bad deal.
Nevertheless, as the article also highlights, this approach is unlikely to have favorable long-term financial implications for the state.
I often wonder how far away we are from funding being withheld from states with bad public policy as perceived by the party in power.
This has been going on for many years. From GOP states refusing to accept expanded Obamacare grants, thereby restricting access to healthcare for the poor to refusing to extend 9/11 first responder healthcare until people like Jon Stewart got involved, oppression and cruelty has been used as leverage in policymaking going back to the founding of the US.
Welcome to the future: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Flood_Insurance_Progr...
Congress has been bailing out the program for almost 20 years now.
I will never understand the endless linguistic indirection when in the end it’s all Soylent Green; just people.
Insurance is an extremely demanding business. This isn’t something you can throw commodity drones at. If you’re willing to create a coöperative job that pays millions to its actuaries and risk managers, fine. Most don’t. Hence why a profit-based model works: it can incentivise the people that are needed for it to work in the long run to do the job. (In the short run, anyone can run a sloppy insurance operation.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saskatchewan_Government_Insura...
Are banks legally required to offer mortgages to suitable candidates, regardless of region?
I would prefer that my bank, my insurance company, and the government duke it out amongst themselves, and not involve me.
Central FL doesn't see nearly as much hurricane damage as the coast, but we are also being subjected to increased premiums.