Perhaps the most interesting part of the article:

  • Laser@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    Insurances need to cover their expected cost with the rates, otherwise they won’t be able to cover in case of an incident. Nobody will run an insurance expecting a loss, and you can’t force anyone to.

    The alternative is like when we had flood that the state bails out the boomers who bought houses when they were cheap in areas where insurance won’t insure because of risk, paid with taxes by people like me who have a hard time acquiring property because taxes and other cost are so high due to decisions their generation and earlier ones made.

    Of course, this is somewhat exaggerated; they also pay taxes. But it’s also not completely wrong.

    In the particular case of a previous colleague’s house getting flooded, I always had to think of the fact that she chose to fly a certain route for work to save about 2 hours because it’s just so much more convenient than the train.

    I mean it would have happened with it without her flying, but still thought about it.