• Buelldozer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The risk in Florida isn’t shared across the nation, which would mitigate this issue.

    I’m living in Wyoming at over a mile of elevation. What is my incentive to “share the risk” by paying higher insurance rates so that some asshole in Florida can keep their beach condo??? Same with the red nose and clown shoe wearing bozos that keep building homes in the fire prone areas of California.

    If you can’t afford insurance and you can’t afford to rebuild then you can’t afford to live there. It’s that simple.

    • Banzai51@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Like I said in other responses, being in the larger pool reduces your risk. They can still charge FLA residences for being in a higher risk zone. But pulling from a nationwide pool makes sure they can cover when a storm the size of the whole state swoops in and creates damage over such a large area. Isolating Florida just makes it impossible to cover. You would actually benefit by being in the larger pool. The more they isolate you, the higher the risk of the pool, which means premiums increase. This exact thing happened at my workplace when the insurance company created “healthy” and “unhealthy” pool. Premiums for both pools shot up. Everyone was better off all being in the larger pool, yes even with the “unhealthy” people in the pool. Same thing applies here.

      • Buelldozer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        It doesn’t reduce the risk, it merely shares the cost across more people. You also don’t seem to be aware that the Federal Government is already subsidizing Flood Insurance in Florida through the NFIP which is administered by FEMA. The people living there are already benefiting from distributed cost via direct contributions from Federal Tax money.