• PlantJam@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Edit: I see now the comment I replied to is about subsidizing losses, not about having a state run insurance program.

        If the premiums are risk based, why not not? Ideally there would also be a buyback program for homes deemed to be uninhabitable due to climate risk. Maybe something like the state will buy the house at 80% of the value used for property taxes, up to a certain maximum (fixed dollar amount? Percentage over the county/state median?) This buyback program could be used when the premiums become unaffordable.

      • Zement@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        Until you get hit by a natural disaster, then it’s different?

        Of course you need a evaluation if the damage should be replaced and how the owner could have avoided some damages… that is how insurances work.

        Don’t build zou house close to a wildfire spot. Don’t buy property in a Hurricane path…

        Thing is: This shit will happen everywhere anytime.

      • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        “Why should I have to pay for YOUR kids to go to school?”

        “Why should I pay for social safety nets when I’m well off?”

        “Why should I pay for roads when I don’t drive?”

        Because there will come a day where you may need the help, and it wont be there cause your pigheaded myopia, and then you’ll cry and cry about the unfairness of it all and maybe, just maybe, if you have a functioning neuron in that brain of yours, that maybe the fraction of a cent of yours that actually goes to help people isnt such a bad thing afterall

        • mohammed_alibi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          Unbounded risk-taking such as insuring people building houses in risky locations will lead to bankrupting the country.

          If insurance is going to cover it, then there needs to be stipulations on the home owner to reduce the risk - for example, building the home out of steel and concrete, raising the structure high enough so that floods and storm surges cannot reach indoors, etc.

          • DempstersBox@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            Oh the hell it will.

            We could have a functional colony on the moon and mars if NASA got a quarter of the military budget.

            Maybe, just maybe, we stop spending billions to kill brown people for no good reason, and spend a tiny fucking fraction of that to make our own part of the world Less of a shithole, instead of more

          • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            Unbounded risk-taking such as insuring people building houses in risky locations will lead to bankrupting the country.

            Bullshit.

            Its a drop of piss in the ocean compared to all the ridiculous shit America wastes money on every single goddamn day.

        • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          None of your examples involve encouraging people to make stupid decisions like building a house that’s almost guaranteed to be destroyed within a few years.

      • DempstersBox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        You know, not everyone living in Florida has a beachfront vacation home, right?

        Not everyone living there chose to live there either.

        Did you know people can be born places? With family? That aren’t rich?