Perhaps the most interesting part of the article:

  • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    18 hours ago

    Let me rephrase. If they refused to insure any house that was a high risk for one factor. That would be a very sizable chunk of the country. Even if they only refused to insure it for the thing it was high risk for, it would make unsurance on the house pointless. Flood zones and wildfire zones particularly are expending every year. Hurricane zones used to be ok to insure because hurricanes didn’t hit too hard too often. But they are stronger and more frequent, so much of Florida has a very short list of insurers which will trend to zero in the near future. While I agree everyone should move out of florida because of the shitty politics, that isn’t really practical.

    • fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 hours ago

      The cost of insurance needs to equal the risk though.

      If a house is going to get burned down every year, who pays to re-build it?

      It isn’t practical to expect everyone to move out of florida, but climate change is impractical.