Is the world becoming uninsurable?
427 comments
·January 17, 2025phtrivier
igravious
+4°C is to the upper end of projections
if it did (which is not probable) happen it'd take until the end of the century
if we were to get there the entire world will be a different place; everything will have advanced so we won't be insuring our present world with our current knowledge and current tech but a future world with future knowledge and future tech
tobyhinloopen
American, living in area prone to natural disasters: "Is the WHOLE WORLD becoming uninsurable?"
The answer is obviously "no" since there are other parts of the world that don't live on a hurricane highway nor build houses made from firewood in an area prone to wildfires.
HacklesRaised
To be fair we are talking about an area of the country that is prone to seismic activity, it does limit the building materials.
Perhaps what should be more commonly accepted is that the US is a land of great natural beauty! And large tracts of it should be left to nature.
What's the average monthly leccy bill in Phoenix during the summer? $400?
Where does LA get most of its water? Local sources? I don't think that's the case.
New Orleans is a future Atlantis.
San Francisco is a city built by Monty Python. Don't build it there it'll fall down, but I built it anyway, and it fell down, so I built it again...
etchalon
We're bad at so very many things while thinking we're the best at everything.
nejsjsjsbsb
Climate change enters the chat...
adrianN
Even pessimistic scenarios don't predict threats to buildings (other than war, which to my knowledge never was insurable) in most areas of the world.
swiftcoder
I don't know about that. The Iberian peninsula is not historically at much risk for natural disasters, and we now suffer alternating forest fires and floods pretty much every year...
agsnu
A significant portion of human structures are located close to the coast (seaborne trade having been a huge enabler of economic development for a few hundred years) and are exposed to flooding from rising sea levels, or built in valleys that are increasingly at risk from flooding due to far-above-long-term-historic-norms precipitation runoff (higher atmospheric temps lead to more energy in weather systems; see eg massive floods in Europe in the past few years).
CalRobert
Seems like having the ocean at your door would be bad for the structure? Or burning down in a hot dry period…
nejsjsjsbsb
Except for Fire?
Animats
Not uninsurable, but buildings are going to have to become tougher.
It's happened before. Chicago's reaction to the Great Fire was simple - no more building wooden houses. Chicago went all brick. Still is, mostly.
The trouble is, brick isn't earthquake resistant. Not without steel reinforcement.
I live in a house built of cinder block filled with concrete reinforced with steel. A commercial builder built this as his personal residence in 1950. The walls look like a commercial building. The outside is just painted cinder block. Works fine, survived the 1989 earthquake without damage, low maintenance. It's not what most people want today in the US.
_tariky
In Yugoslavia, in 1969, one of the biggest earthquakes occurred, destroying several cities. After that, the country’s leaders decided to change building codes. Even today, although Yugoslavia no longer exists, the countries that adopted those codes have homes capable of withstanding earthquakes up to 7.5 on the Richter scale.
My main point is that if we face major natural disasters, we need to take action to mitigate their impact in the future. As a foreigner, it seems to me that Americans prioritize building cheap homes over constructing better and more resilient ones.
Panzer04
Why bother building a better home when it's cheaper to buy insurance and rebuild later?
This is why prices are important - sometimes it's sensible to build cheaper houses without these safeties if the risk isn't there, but if the risk does exist then it needs to be priced right to provide that incentive.
Almondsetat
How about the cost of your life? If the house resists the earthquake and you are inside it, you don't die.
poisonborz
Maybe people don't like to restart their lives like that if it's avoidable, even if it costs more.
consp
Only you also take into account your cheap home will likely accelerate the problem. Which never happens.
miohtama
Maybe be there is no longer "cheap" and that's the issue
willvarfar
(Recently there was a major public building collapse in Serbia: the porch of the Novi Sad railway station collapsed, killing 15 people. This has really focused attention on corruption and caused massive protests.)
trinix912
What collapsed was the newly rebuilt part of the porch, not the old one built to those codes. It has nothing to do with insufficient building codes, hence a corruption scandal.
johnisgood
Yeah, I'm surprised that the damages of the LA fire occurred, because it was known beforehand that California had a fire problem (and also have an earthquake problem I think).
I'm here in Eastern Europe and our buildings can withstand a lot of things.
> we need to take action to mitigate their impact in the future. As a foreigner, it seems to me that Americans prioritize building cheap homes over constructing better and more resilient ones.
As an European, it baffles me as well.
If this doesn't happen to "cheap" homes here, why does it happen in California, to rich people's houses?
yieldcrv
All the properties that survived in those LA neighborhoods all had some pretty basic and intentional fire resistance
I’m curious about how many others did that burned down too
But so far the ones highlighted had super obvious mitigations that its astounding to see were not more common
nobodywillobsrv
The government banned insurance companies from raising prices. They used tax payer money to subsidize this for a while which increase home prices. Eventually insurance companies stopped offering insurance.
When state actors even dabble in socialism disasters happen people die.
wakawaka28
The fire problem can be managed by burning or removing some of the dead wood, and building adequate water storage. Apparently California has been neglecting those two problems for decades.
euroderf
> Americans prioritize building cheap homes over constructing better and more resilient ones.
It's all considered disposable, much like strip malls.
Theodores
In 1666 London had a bit of a problem with fire, after that some building codes were introduced. Buildings made entirely from wood were not allowed and roofs had to have a parapet.
If you don't know what a parapet is, take a look up to the roofs on London's older buildings, the front wall rises up past the bottom of the roof. If there is a fire in the building then the parapet keeps the burning roof inside the footprint of the building rather than let it 'slide off' to set fire to the property on the other side of the street.
The parapet requirement did not extend to towns outside London, which makes me wonder why.
The answer to that is to see what goes on in the USA. After a natural disaster they just pick themselves up and keep going. Florida was obliterated in 2024 but nobody cared after a fortnight. Same with the current wild fires, nobody will care next week, it will be forgotten, even though having one's home destroyed might be considered deeply traumatic.
I think that the key to change is to not have too many natural disasters, ideally nobody has living memory of the last fire/flood/earthquake/pandemic/alien invasion/plague of locusts so that there is no point of reference or 'compassion fatigue'. Only then can there be a fair expectation of political will and the possibility of change.
andsoitis
> Florida was obliterated in 2024
That’s an huge exaggeration. FL was not obliterated in 2024.
Stats:
Total storms 18
Hurricanes 11
Major hurricanes (Cat. 3+) 5
Total fatalities 401
Total damage $128.072 billion
(Third-costliest tropical cyclone season on record)
SturgeonsLaw
> ideally nobody has living memory of the last [...]
Funny, I would have said the exact opposite. If people forget how bad things were, they seem more likely to repeat them.
Nazism, for one. And the rise in antivax sentiment - people today have never come across an iron lung, which is a testament to medical technology, but it means some silly opinions get way more traction than they should.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" - George Santayana
Sabinus
If the market is allowed to price insurance correctly then we can motivate building designs to be more disaster resist. If the McMansion can't get insurance but disaster resistant, modest homes do, then people will adapt.
iandanforth
"Correctly" is doing a lot of work here. Some readers might miss that this is double edged. Insurance is a mandated product. You don't have a choice if you want a mortgage, or want to run a business. So while it is true that the sustainable price for insurance in many areas is higher than what current regulations allow, let's not forget what happens in an unregulated insurance market; price gouging.
roenxi
If the regulators have defined 'price gouging' as a price substantially below the break even mark, literally any profitable insurance product is implicitly believed by them to be price gouging. The US does a weird thing where "insurance" no longer means pooling risk but some sort of transfer payment welfare system. If they're going to define "price gouging" as profitable activity it is hard to see how the economy is going to function.
Allowing insurers to make a profit and run a business without interference is going to be cheaper - and in most instances better - than whatever the politicians are trying to build here. If you get rid of all the mandatory-this and price-gouging-thats then to stay in business insurers have sell products that people want to buy at a competitive yet sustainable price. It works for food, it'd work here too.
CalRobert
For what it’s worth, you can get a house with no insurance or mortgage. They tend to be cheap. I had an uninsured thatched cottage for a while, it was 68k
chii
> unregulated insurance market; price gouging.
with sufficient competition, it is impossible to price gouge.
So if there is supposed price gouging, then there must be insufficient competition. Therefore, the source of the lack of competition would need to be removed (ostensibly, by gov't - such as increasing business loans so that new insurance companies can be started).
margalabargala
Price gouging isn't actually what we're seeing in the most disaster prone areas. Insurance companies aren't charging open ended prices, they're simply exiting the market. Florida for example.
devman0
P&C insurance is a pretty competitive industry, and there are plenty of mutual insurance companies in the P&C business that don't have a price gouging incentive. Most of the regulations that are about reducing counterparty risk for the insured are probably necessary, but price controls are not, and generally, they only distort the market.
ahupp
The big risk that we need regulation for is not that insurance charges too much, but too little. There will always be the temptation to charge less than the other guy, get lots of customers and hope nothing really bad happens.
umanwizard
Can you define “price gouging”?
wakawaka28
Insurance (at least the kind we are talking about) is only mandatory if you have loans, and even then it is not 100% mandated. We do need insurance regulations, but price caps limit what things actually make sense to cover. To put it another way, you are free to buy land in a risky area if you want, but nobody has to insure it or loan you money for it. If you find someone who will loan you the money if you can get insurance, then you can't get insurance, that sucks for you but nobody owes it to you to hand over money on a losing investment. These requirements can be abused, but there really isn't much evidence of insurers, lenders, and investors colluding to rip people off.
doctorpangloss
Resistant homes will pay nearly the same prices as everyone else. So the cinder block home owner is subsidizing the sticks houses.
Same happens in autos. Monitored safe driving nets at most 10-20% discounts. Biggest factor is age, and even then, difference between 20yo and 35yo driver is 38%.
There are no tricks or deals to insurance.
chii
> Resistant homes will pay nearly the same prices as everyone else.
but this means the insurance company is mispricing (or is being forced to misprice) the risk of resistant homes.
In theory, when correct pricing happens, these resistant homes should face less claims, and thus the premiums paid on them is high profit margin; ala, the customer is a good one, and the insurer should persue this customer more than another. This ought to results in a discount for said customer's premium, as more insurers vie for this customer over another.
typewithrhythm
This is more a matter of market rules than an inherent property of insurance; currently we do not let insurers get sufficiently granular due to some assumptions about wider social benefits of a less individualised system.
This might be reworked to allow for fire resistant designs to be a factor.
nerdponx
> Biggest factor is age, and even then, difference between 20yo and 35yo driver is 38%.
That's because age is both observable and strongly predictive of risk.
null
mikewarot
It was only a week or so ago that I learned that a major failure mode of most houses in Florida during Hurricane season used to be the roofs ripping off. The tie plates and straps that were invented to solve that problem created the McMansion as a side effect.[1]
cutemonster
Interesting video, didn't know about truss plates
scarab92
Wood for earthquake resistance vs masonry for fire resistance seems like a false dichotomy.
Australia has a lot of experience with building fire resistant homes, and they didn’t do it with masonry, they did it with timber and steel framed homes, plus fireproof cladding and roofing materials, keeping a perimeter free of vegetation and protecting against ember ingress.
It is possible to have both earthquake and fire resistance in a stick framed home, without the expense of resorting to reinforced concrete.
nejsjsjsbsb
Australia is surprisingly urban, especially in terms of I would guess 90%+ of people live in relatively safe places fire wise (putting inhalation of particles aside).
People in built up areas almost don't think at all about wildfire safety, cladding an so on.
jpalawaga
California's building codes are the same. Three problems: overhaul takes generations, monster fire storms will still burn resistant materials, and brush upkeep is difficult
asciimov
When I briefly lived in Oklahoma I found it frustrating that they use stick frame construction for homes and apartment buildings. Even when we know how to build much safer wind resistant houses.
What I thought was worse was once a tornado rips up a neighborhood builders are allowed to build replacement stick framed homes.
mjevans
More than just buildings.
ZONING and Building Code need to change.
You're correct that buildings must be more robust and literally capable of surviving an ongoing 4th of July event directly above the property.
However they must also be built such that there is less which is able to burn. Also so that that which does burn is less deadly when it burns.
There also need to be better firebreaks and less natural 'fuel load', which when there IS a good set of rain in the near future, needs to be burned in a rotating cycle to restore nature's fuel balance and discourage catastrophic uncontrolled correction events.
NoPicklez
I don't think its necessarily the case what people don't want, but I assume that type of build doesn't come cheap and people find existing homes expensive enough.
irrational
We live in an ICF house. People don’t realize it is “framed” with concrete instead of wood unless we tell them. Siding on the outside and drywall on the inside.
throw310822
In northern Italy, the rebuilding of mountain villages in brick and stone after devastating fires had destroyed many of them was ordered in the nineteenth century. It's absurd to claim you can't do anything against fires and the world has become uninsurable in the 21st century and in the world's richest country, while you keep building everything in the cheapest and lightest wood. The sight of the houses burned to the ground except for their fireplace and chimney in the middle is both sad and infuriating.
bluedevil2k
Like we see in California, when the government sets a price ceiling, insurance companies just leave. Same in Florida. If the free market truly was allowed run normally, the insurance rates in Pacific Palisades or on the Florida coast would be so high that no one could afford to live there. Is that a bad thing? If someone was living in a house near where they tested missiles, we'd call them crazy. At what point can we say the same about people building and rebuilding over and over in these disaster areas.
epistasis
I've been trying to talk to people locally, a place with lots of homes built in the woodland-urban interface, about the risks of climate change and how insurance will have to change. Unfortunately these discussions almost never go well, because it seems that most people have at best a surface level understanding of what insurance is and how it works, and everyone is convinced that it's a full scam and insurance companies are fabricating everything. When in reality, insurance is one of the rare areas where risks are very well assessed, not just by the initial insurer but also by a second party when reinsurance is purchased. And often those exits from the insurance markers are due to inability to purchase reinsurance.
Of course, explaining anything in detail is likely to make people think you work in the industry (I do not) and get accused of being a shill. All of which proves to me that older generations had a much easier life because nobody so financially ignorant today is in any sort of position to be able to buy a home.
All that said, I don't think it's actually a price ceiling. It's a limitation of what factors can be taken into account to set rates, and constitutional amendment from Prop 108 prevents the legislature from changing it.
Aurornis
> Unfortunately these discussions almost never go well, because it seems that most people have at best a surface level understanding of what insurance is and how it works, and everyone is convinced that it's a full scam and insurance companies are fabricating everything
I have the exact same experience when discussing anything insurance related: People have wild assumptions about how much profit insurance companies are making.
When I ask people how much cheaper they think their insurance (health, home, etc) would be if we forced insurance company profits to zero they usually have some extreme guess like 50%. When you point out that, for example, health insurance profits are low single digit percentage of overall healthcare costs they just don’t believe it. The discourse is so cooked that everyone who just assumes insurers are making unbelievable profits without ever checking.
Like you said, when I try to bring numbers into the discussion I get accused of being a shill (or a “bootlicker” if the other person is young).
The environment this creates has opened the door for some really bad politics to intervene in ways that aren’t helpful. I wouldn’t be surprised if the eventual outcome in a lot of these places is that politicians pass legislation putting the local government on the hook for insurance after they squeeze regular insurers so hard they have to back out to avoid losing money in those markets. The consequences won’t manifest for several years, potentially after the politicians have left office, but could be financially burdensome. Similar to how many local governments were very generous with pension plans because politicians knew the consequences would only be felt by their successors.
novok
Health insurance's issue is probably how it induces pure waste everywhere as everyone has to play this dance of ever escalating paperwork which consumes a lot of labor. It's not profit, it's waste. Same with the ever increasing amount of admin. Why is that admin increasing? I estimate insurance or requirements created by insurance is part of the cause.
There is also a lot of other smells of a lack of a competitive market. Very opaque pricing, limits to how many hospitals can be opened in a region, needing paperwork to push against that limit, limits in residency slots, the entire hazing ritual of residency in the first place, limits in opening medical schools, ever escalating requirements to become a doctor, restrictions against doctor owned hospitals or clinics, the fact something like an epipen is still not out of patent and not having many clones by now, large barriers to make medical devices and medications, while simultaneously having great issues with generic drug quality, a horrible food system compared to Europe, while simultaneously having a much harder regulatory state medically compared to europe, etc.
throw0101a
> When you point out that, for example, health insurance profits are low single digit percentage of overall healthcare costs they just don’t believe it.
Meanwhile, the health care providers:
> But if you look at the list of companies with the highest [return on equity], you see health care providers or suppliers like HCA Healthcare (272%), Cencora (234%), Abbvie (84%), Mckesson (84%), Novo Nordisk (72%), Eli Lilly (59%), Amgen (56%), IDEXX Laboratories (53%), Zoetis (46%), Novartis (44%), Edwards Lifesciences (43%), and so on. If you want to know which shareholders are making the real money in the health care industry…well, it’s the shareholders of those providers and suppliers.
* https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/insurance-companies-arent-the-...
harimau777
The profit margin doesn't include things like CEO salary, correct? I could see a scenario where the issue is still corporate greed just not greed that's measured by profit.
wuiheerfoj
>When you point out that, for example, health insurance profits are low single digit percentage of overall healthcare costs
Do you have any source for this?
I’m assuming (because HN) that you had the USA in mind, and it doesn’t pass the sniff test for me given that US insurance fees are more than single digit percentages higher than other high quality care countries with privatised healthcare systems
inferiorhuman
When you point out that, for example, health insurance profits are low
single digit percentage of overall healthcare costs they just don’t
believe it.
You ever think it's curious that for-profit insurance companies pay out 2–3x what Medicare does for the same procedures?
jpalawaga
You do realize health insurers have federally mandated caps on their profits, which simply incentivizes creative accounting to make money in more oblique ways, right?
hattmall
Health Insurance IS a huge racket. Insurance profits are only a small slice. Executive compensation isn't part of profits. The profits of the required sole source medical supplies company isn't part of insurance profits. The contracts, salaries, benefit packages, overpayments, and waste of healthcare systems and pharmaceutical companies aren't reflected in insurance profits. Just looking at the raw profit percentages returned to shareholders is absolutely meaningless.
You have to look at the entire healthcare picture and realize that insurance is the system driving the exorbitant costs. There is no legitimate reason for healthcare prices to be so insane.
donavanm
> I've been trying to talk to people locally, a place with lots of homes built in the woodland-urban interface, about the risks
Its not just the insurance costs either. My neighbor is an architect who now does planning/consultation with the RFS (rural fire service, australia). Its basically de rigueur for people to try and avoid or evade fire sensitive planning controls. Just the most basic concepts like defensible space, eve guards, or nonflammable finishes, let alone adequate on site water storage or site access. People are intentionally building in bushland because they want to be “in trees”, unless they block the view of course.
Even if they understand the concepts and remember black saturday, or a few years back!, it doesnt apply to them. Theres no concept of personal risk & consequences, and theyre right. They will probably get bailed out by volunteers and socialized losses. Just like new developments along riverine flood ways.
rented_mule
At some level, insurance is about spreading out financial risk. Insurance companies would love for every policy to be profitable, but if we let it go that far, it's merely a savings account with negative interest rates. At another level, insurance is about analyzing risk and making it more expensive to take bigger risks. Where do we want the tradeoff between these things? Whatever we choose, we have to have some ability to predict / evaluate risk.
In the face of climate change, places that have been safe for a very long time are becoming unsafe. But I don't see a reason these shifts won't happen over and over as climate change unfolds. It might be worse than mass migrations... migrations to locations which later become dangerous, turning into recurring mass migrations.
How well can we predict where it will be safe in the coming decades and where it won't. Coastal land at or below current sea level (plus storm surge) is fairly predictable, especially where there isn't the population density (and money) to support building sea walls. But with things like rivers changing course (e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alsek_River), it might become very difficult to predict what's going to be safe down the road. Today we talk about things like 100-year flood plains, but how will we establish flood probabilities when the river that might flood in 10 or 20 years doesn't even exist today?
Are the people who get unlucky with predictions just screwed because their home equity is gone? Or are we going to decide to shoulder the burden together? We're going to find out a lot about humanity, the role of government, etc. as we go through all of this.
null
rewgs
Insurance should not be for profit, and things like e.g. State Farm suddenly cancelling people's renters/fire insurance just two weeks before the fires (I am one of those people) are what people hate about insurance. No one is arguing that insurance is bad at risk assessment, but rather how they wield their proficiency with it.
umanwizard
Why does State Farm in particular have a moral obligation to insure you against fire if it’s not profitable for them to do so?
To pick random examples of unrelated companies, McDonalds or SpaceX would also refuse to insure you against fire. Why should people hate State Farm for this reason, but not McDonalds or SpaceX?
If State Farm didn’t exist and the state ran insurance instead, and were willing to insure all comers, they’d be subsidizing people who can’t be insured profitably. That’s not crazy on its face (the state subsidizes lots of different things), but it’s at least worth asking why we should be paying for people to live in high-fire-risk areas rather than any number of other things the state could be spending those resources on.
hnburnsy
State Farm notified its customers in August of its non-renewal (not cancelling) of policies, plenty of time for homeowners to get new policies or fall back to the state fund.
And what is fire insurance? Is that something unique to CA?
refurb
My insurance was cancelled but I don’t blame the insurer at all.
CA regulation basically capped their premium increase and my insurer did calculations that said “this is a net negative business”.
If I had a business making a loss I would get out, so why would I blame my insurer for doing the same?
lmm
Don't worry, the California government is responding to that by making it illegal to stop offering insurance in the state. That will definitely fix the problem.
owlbite
Source? Many companies seem to be stopping offering insurance in the state just fine!
The most recent moves seem to be relaxing the pricing rules to allow major disaster pricing and recharging reinsurance rates in exchange for insurers offering more policies in high risk areas.
nathanaldensr
https://www.clydeco.com/en/insights/2025/01/california-wildf...
> The Bulletin was issued pursuant to California Insurance Code section 675.1(b)(1), which states that an insurer “shall not cancel or refuse to renew a policy of residential property insurance for a property located in any zip code within or adjacent to the fire perimeter, for one year after the declaration of a state of emergency . . . based solely on the fact that the insured structure is located in an area in which a wildfire has occurred.”
rcpt
Gotta catch up to Florida
tptacek
Or some forms of housing in high-risk areas, like sprawling single-family houses, might get too expensive, and the only way for people to live in those places would be a smaller number of denser, more easily defended structures. Also a good thing.
JKCalhoun
> when the government sets a price ceiling, insurance companies just leave…
> the insurance rates in Pacific Palisades or on the Florida coast would be so high that no one could afford to live there…
Seems like the result is the same — people will live there but without insurance.
orange_joe
worse, you’ll be paying to bail them out in the name of solidarity.
urhmbutwait
That’s insurance?
Change the euphemism from government to private insurance to satisfy capitalism gods and keep their giant foot from squishing us… still “on the books” as a co-mingled pool of funds to shift around to solve problems.
Aw …sad… other people exist and need resources too. Not just about your first world skin suit playing temp host to a run of the mill electromagnetic field effect.
jmclnx
>Like we see in California, when the government sets a price ceiling, insurance companies just leave
Does not answer the question. With no price caps, no one will be able to buy insurance even if required by law. So that means if you own a house in a risky area, you will be unable to sell it and your values will fall. The price caps are to prevent that. But to me, there should be big incentives to prevent building and re-building in risky areas.
So yes, the world in some areas are uninsurable. And other areas are becoming uninsurable.
gunian
Tangential but I have read about propaganda and social engineering but seeing human caused fires to control migration patterns is a level of diabolical I never thought I would live to see but can't blame them if the cheap rent and house prices don't do the job gotta do what you gotta do
Panzer04
Why is the burden on insurance companies to make up for individual poor decisions?
In some cases it makes sense to socialise the losses, but I'm not convinced this is one of them.
underwater
Price caps always seem like such a transparent political move.
mgiampapa
How about profit caps? I feel like government stepping in and being the insurer with a sufficiently large pool of risk to spread around lets them set a fair rate without the need to make a return or answer to shareholders.
To some extent this has helped with health insurance. Each year I get a check back from my insurer saying they didn't spend enough on my care vs my premiums.
donavanm
> I feel like government stepping in and being the insurer with a sufficiently large pool of risk to spread around lets them set a fair rate without the need to make a return or answer to shareholders.
Youre about 20-30 years late to the game, but arrive in time to see the conclusion does not match your assumption. See california for fire, florida for fstorm damage, and everywhere in the us for federal flood coverage. It doesnt work. CA FAIR has higher rates to account for increasing the coverage pool, but it doesnt look like premiums will cover the current or future loses. Which is the universal story when your policy attracts all the high risk/payout buyers. And FAIR, roughly, is setup to go recoup losses from all the _other_ insurance providers in the state. Even ones not insuring those policy holders _or that type of insurance_. Its just a layer of indirection to subsidize fire risk against all poly holders.
bitcurious
> To some extent this has helped with health insurance. Each year I get a check back from my insurer saying they didn't spend enough on my care vs my premiums.
This has baffled me ever since Obamacare was first passed - it seems that each year the insurance companies have an incentive to drive up the cost of healthcare, since that’s how they earn more money in absolute terms. Is it not so?
csomar
Sure. Because the response of a failure in governance is more government? What you are proposing is "unfair". You are essentially suggesting that the rest of the country subsidize a subset who wants to live near high-risk areas. Me too want to live in a dense forest and also have my house by the edge of the river.
You could make the argument for this for healthcare, since no one can choose which illness he is born with. But choosing your housing location is a "choice". And you can/should move somewhere else where it is less risky.
JumpCrisscross
> How about profit caps?
Transfers wealth from shareholders, patients and taxpayers to management, bankers and intermediaries.
Broadly speaking, caps are stupid—akin to treating liver enzymes directly when they spike versus seeing them as the sign of deeper problems.
waterhouse
Profit caps presumably create perverse consequences. If the profit I'm allowed to make is proportional to X, then I'm incentivized to maximize X. If X is my costs, then... Maybe that's where these unbelievably high line items on medical bills come from.
cowsandmilk
> How about profit caps?
What period do you put it over for property insurance? Profit caps work for health insurance because claims are typically not correlated. The percentage of your customers with cancer won’t 5x one year and go back to baseline the next. New drugs or treatments (or a drug going off patent) can cause correlated swings, but generally costs to health insurers don’t change a lot year to year.
For property insurance, you need to bring in profits most years to fund the year when there are multiple category V hurricanes or large fires.
ladberg
Insurance companies have pretty thing profit margins regardless, even in areas where profits are not capped. It's a competitive marketplace!
toast0
Most regulated insurance markets do have profit caps. California certainly does, but there was still a price cap added.
zeroonetwothree
Clearly it’s not true that “no one” could afford to live there. And if demand was low then the housing would become more affordable
sadeshmukh
No one can truly afford to live there, if you price in the cost of insurance. The only reason people live there is because they haven't hit the 1/100 chance yet.
oefrha
There are plenty of very rich people living there who can afford the house burning down every single year. So false.
loeg
> Same in Florida.
The Florida situation is actually markedly different. The main problem was extreme litigation-friendliness. Florida saw 80% of the nation's insurance lawsuits but only ~8% of the insurance business. They've also since passed some reforms (HB 837, 2023; SB 2-A, 2022).
mikhailfranco
If insurance and property taxes are proportional to property price, and property prices grow faster than incomes, then cost of ownership will eventually become unaffordable to existing residents.
A similar argument works if insurance is just based on reconstruction cost, but construction costs inflate faster than incomes.
If properties become unaffordable, then to restore equilibrium, property prices must fall, incomes must rise, or lower-income residents will sell to higher-income purchasers. If there are few higher-income purchasers, property prices will fall.
Property taxes could be cut, or decoupled from property values (e.g. poll tax), but that never happens.
If the risk really is high, there is no practical insurance available, and all purchasers are rational, then the price may go to zero.
An example of an irrational purchaser would be one who assigned high status to a beach house, even in the face of threats from coastal erosion, hurricane floods or tsunamis.
api_or_ipa
Every era has it's Malthusian alarmists and without fail, each has been proven wrong by exactly the same thing the author decries and says won't work this time: technological change and adaption. There's no reason to think this time will be any different. Will some places become uninsurable? Sure, plenty of places over time have become uninsurable. Will the whole world became uninsurable? Absolutely not, because we are quite good at adaptation in the face of adversity.
The issue in California is not the price of insurance, it's availability because of extremely myopic ballot initiatives that are entirely political in nature. Should insurance be fairly priced, then the market can force people out of uninsurable areas and into areas with far less chance to burn.
forgotoldacc
Thinking technology will always save us is no different from divine or magical thinking.
Lots of societies and civilizations have collapsed. Some were straight up wiped off the earth and we don't even know what happened to them. Western civilization has had a good 500 years, and America has had a good 250 years, but that doesn't mean things can never go bad in the future.
Plenty of places have had catastrophic droughts, famines, and plagues. Nearly half of Europe died a few times from plagues. Most natives in America were absolutely wiped out from disease and other issues. Tens of millions died of famine in China last century. Tsunamis washed away and killed hundreds of thousands in Indonesia and Japan this current century.
In the past, the Krakatoa eruption messed with the climate around the world and made the sky dark. The Bronze Age Collapse is something we still don't understand but nearly wiped out everything in the western world. With population density higher than ever, disasters that match major historical ones would be far more destructive. It's really just been an unusually peaceful few decades in first world countries and people have gotten too comfortable.
Daz1
>Plenty of places have had catastrophic droughts, famines, and plagues. Nearly half of Europe died a few times from plagues. Most natives in America were absolutely wiped out from disease and other issues. Tens of millions died of famine in China last century. Tsunamis washed away and killed hundreds of thousands in Indonesia and Japan this current century.
Conveniently you selected pre-technology examples. How curious.
Meanwhile the impending global famine(s) - (plural) of the 20th century never came to be because captitalism kept pumping out agriscience improvements to improve crop yields to 10 times what they were in 1900.
forgotoldacc
???
Technology has been around for hundreds of thousands of years. What are you defining as "technology"? Software as a service chatbots? Because those aren't saving anyone.
And 227000 people died 20 years ago in a tsunami in Indonesia. They had cell phones and the internet. Is that pre-technology? 50 million died in famines in China in the 1950s. They had TV, radio, and computers. Is that pre-technology?
Technology is just tools that humans make to solve a problem.[1] It's not magic. And in the case of the Japanese tsunami, the most basic technology that humans have had for tens of thousands of years saved countless lives: just building a wall, and making it tall enough to block rising water. [2] But wrapping an entire country in walls is kind of unfeasible. And you can't protect the entire world. We never know what kind of disaster will strike next, and technology to protect us only develops after we suffer the consequences at least once.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology#Prehistoric
[2] https://www.japantimes.co.jp/photo-essay-the-seawalls-of-toh...
Sabinus
Technology can't save you from famines when there isn't enough sunlight to grow crops for a season or two. One good supervolcano and civilization might collapse or at least take such a hit as to be utterly transformed. Billions dead, etc.
adrianN
The Green Revolution has so far just postponed famines. We are farming in an unsustainable way. We're running out of fertile topsoil and are depleting fossil aquifers in many regions of the world. Inorganic fertilizers might become scarce in the foreseeable future too.
forgetfreeman
One thing worth noting about these agriscience improvements you're touting would be they require a combination of non-renewable inputs and unsustainable amounts of water. There is also the minor issue of unrecoverable topsoil depletion and the steady decline of nutrients in agricultural products tracked over decades. Kicking the can down the road isn't the same as solving the problem.
rewgs
You selected pre-climate change examples. How curious.
energy123
> "we are quite good at adaptation in the face of adversity."
null
davidw
I think what I worry about is large-scale migrations of people to 'better' areas and the problems that's going to cause.
nejsjsjsbsb
Let alone migrations for other reasons, e.g. moving to states with better human rights or work availability.
locallost
This is the same logic that almost destroyed the financial system in 2008. "House prices always go up, and there is no reason to think this time will be different". Fine logic that works until it doesn't.
At best your logic works because people get concerned, and work to solve the problem. Once there is a critical mass of people unconcerned, like yourself, that think we will magically adapt and solve the problem, we're screwed.
TheOtherHobbes
Which is nice.
But important, useful things will still be burning and flooding, at huge cost to the economy. Which is less nice.
At this point I think we've tipped into a world of complete delusion, where imaginary "markets" are more important than keeping the planet comfortable, stable, and inhabitable.
Also. this, from that most volatile, irrational, and least sensible of all professions - the actuaries:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jan/16/economic...
InDubioProRubio
? Have you opened a history book? The whole pre-WW2 situation was a malthusian trap. The colonial empires starved out whole continents on the periphery of their empires. Thats how japan and germany turned to hyper-imperialism in the first place.
And the solution of turning gas into fertilizer requires a free trade system to be reliable.
null
colechristensen
You can't live in places where your home is going to get destroyed every couple of decades by wildfires, floods, or hurricanes. There are more of these places now because of climate change and a lot of people are going to have to migrate over the next century, like huge global migrations. Insurance can't/won't allow a bunch of people to deny this reality any more (or at least much longer). LA is going to be pretty uninsurable unless the local governments do a lot to mitigate the fire risk.
teractiveodular
As the 173 million strong population of Bangladesh can attest, they can and do live in such places.
"Each year, on average, 31,000 square kilometres (12,000 sq mi) (around 21% of the country) is flooded. During severe floods the affected area may exceed two-thirds of the country, as was seen in 1998."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floods_in_Bangladesh
Most of the world does not want to aspire to be Bangladesh, but humans have been living in extremely disaster-prone areas for millennia because the short-term benefits (rich soil etc) outweigh the occasional catastrophic losses.
redwall_hp
Another example: Japan has many quakes per year and has a strangely high percentage of the world's active volcanos. People have lived there for a very long time, built to accommodate it (both traditionally, using timber and expecting to rebuild often, or with modern earthquake-hardened architecture), and is now a top five economy by GDP.
And, well, most of the US is just a hanger-on to California's economy.
daedrdev
The cost of labor is extremely high in the US compared to Bangladesh, and that along with building standards, minimum lot size, minimum floor space requirements and required low density zoning (lmao) make these two case very different
jart
Yes and before they migrate due to climate change, they'll sell their charred lots to some fascist with the willpower to clear the brush, fill the reservoirs, and deploy fire fighting drones. Then everything will go back to normal. God protects only the strong.
tptacek
You can; it's just expensive.
TheOtherHobbes
So is living on the sea bed. It's irrationally expensive and inconvenient, which is why we don't do it.
Living in areas in constant danger of flooding and/or burning and/or storm wind damage and/or drought seems like quite an eccentrically inconvenient lifestyle flex.
Unless you like disaster movies.
misja111
Everything is insurable, it's just a matter of making the premium high enough. If people are willing to pay it, that's another question.
Panzer04
This seems like more of a commentary on a general lack of understanding of basic economics.
If things aren't priced correctly, mayhem ensues. Frustratingly the political solutions to high prices often just put off the problem. Government mandated price fixing, of insurance, rentals, etc never fixes the core problem, only allows it to fester.
Sometimes it's taxpayers losing money, sometimes it's the few unlucky ones being forced by the government - and arguably the latter is worse for everyone as private investment and services dry up because of regulatory risks.
MagicMoonlight
What are we betting that the Americans rebuild in wood again? It seems like they never learn. We had a single city fire like this 500 years ago and since then we haven’t… because we built the city back in brick instead of wood.
jandrewrogers
Americans used to build cities with brick and masonry. They were repeatedly destroyed by strong earthquakes, as would happen to your city if subject to similarly severe earthquakes. Americans paid for that lesson in blood.
European houses are not designed to withstand American disasters. A brick house that can survive a M8.5 earthquake, which is the safety standard where I live, will be almost purely steel structurally and very expensive to build. The brick would be decorative, which can be (and is) done on a wood frame.
throw310822
The entire south and south-east of Europe has a similar seismic risk to most of California, and wooden houses are nowhere to be seen.
adamcharnock
I definitely understand what you are saying here, and it makes sense. But concrete is quite common in Europe these days, which I suspect would also be a good option for earthquake zones.
ohazi
Earthquakes.
Options are wood again, or steel and concrete.
TheCapeGreek
Somehow, all these nations around the world with earthquakes still have their houses standing.
Why is it always whataboutism with earthquakes when presented with "don't build houses out of matchsticks"?
jandrewrogers
Countries like Japan use the same construction techniques as the western US. Few countries have earthquakes as strong as the Pacific Rim, where M8-9+ are regular occurrences. Properly designed wood-framed houses will survive that.
I’ve never seen a house in Europe that was engineered to the M8.5 earthquake standard that is mandatory where I live in the US. They used to construct houses like in Europe but they kept getting destroyed in earthquakes and were made illegal for safety reasons.
locallost
They do not have their houses standing. Look at the recent earthquake in Turkey and Syria. 60k dead and 150 billion in damage.
ezequiel-garzon
Where 500 years ago?
lionkor
Europe, a lot of cities went though a few large fires and then went "facepalm oh!!! maybe we should try stone!"
8bitsrule
Fire insurers could begin ploughing some of their take back into educating clients, helping them harden their homes, and making sure clients are up-to-date on fire codes. As the world changes, businesses should expect to have to remodel their product.
fishstock25
The term "uninsurable" is not linked to "too expensive" or (equivalently) "too high risk". It's linked to "unpredictable".
The business insurances are in is a business of statistics. As long as you can model things giving you an expected value and a standard deviation, you can offer an insurance policy which gives you X amount of profit with Y amount of risk, and the insurance premiums are adjusted such that the insurance's risk for negative profit is negligible, according to the model.
What does it mean for climate change? Current insurance models apparently don't work well, so they don't dare to offer policies in certain areas. But just like city planners need to adjust (build further away from shore, higher up, build in flooding protections) and home owners do (AC, think twice if you want a basement) and farmers (choice of crops, irrigation systems), so do insurances by finding better models that allow them to have better statistics.
My expectation in the long run is that insurances will be offered again, but with so high premiums for certain areas (of high risk) that it will just be too expensive to live there. Which is fine. Nobody lives on the moon either. And the public shouldn't be paying for somebody's privilege to have a nice waterfront property in a hurricane area.
TL;DR: The current public discourse about this topic conflates predictability with cost when talking about "insurability". They are very different things.
amazingamazing
my sadly hot (no pun intended) take is that insurance needs to be let free. price controls on insurance are doubly counterproductive - not only does it result in the companies leaving, it results in those who need the insurance losing their stuff when catastrophe inevitably hits.
it’s ok if insurance is expensive - let it result in the insured goods or services having a serious price adjustment.
rather than price controls a slightly better solution would be just to nationalize insurance and force everyone to use it, but even that is not really a solution since highly correlated events are the antithesis of insurance.
gimmeThaBeet
One thing I am mostly against is nationalized property/casualty insurance. California seems to have taken every opportunity to not properly price risk. My worry is that while extreme, their logic and priorities do not feel unique for government decision making. The last thing I'd want to do is expand it.
When you distort risk pricing, you distort the market, and if you do it hard enough for long enough, you are basically pulling back the slingshot.
While this also applies to mutual insurers, my philosophy is being serious about solvency is the best way to know if you are properly underwriting and pricing. I feel like the government operates too much knowing that they can backstop it either themselves or by imposing an assessment on the market.
You are right that the really big disasters are very correlated events. While not a silver bullet, reinsurance and other risk transfer stuff can help smooth those kind of events out. The good-ish thing with those risks is that while they are uncertain, they are sort of identifiable, known unknowns in Rumsfeld parlance.
I agree with that sentiment, the thing that always seems crazy to me is that California's housing pricing in the face of all these things, but perhaps it's sort of pick your poison. Like I don't want to harp on it, but the only implicit or explicit thing everyone appears to agree on given the decisions that have been made is protecting housing prices above all else. But don't expose people to the ramifications of the housing appreciation (Looking at you, Prop 13).
wat10000
Agreed. The government should ensure fair prices by ensuring healthy competition. Maybe have a (non-subsidized) public option. The government should also compensate for the power disparity by requiring policies to have reasonable coverage and making sure insurance companies actually honor them when the times comes. But directly dictating a maximum price isn’t going to go well.
derf_
> it’s ok if insurance is expensive - let it result in the insured goods or services having a serious price adjustment.
Long term, sure. In the short term, the rapid rise of housing prices combined with the increased rates and severity of disasters means the extra monthly cost would be enough to price a number of people out of homes they purchased when rates were much lower. While it's easy to say, "They should just move," that has huge transaction costs. Aside from the obvious things, which are already substantial, consider the cost of paying off a mortgage taken out a few years ago and acquiring a new mortgage at current interest rates. That can cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars (which shows up as now only being able to afford a much worse house, probably in a much worse location, if you can continue to afford to own at all), and you are basically gifting that money to the bank by paying off your loan early.
You can understand why such people would be willing to take a chance on not having insurance rather than incur a definite loss, and why it might be tempting to try to come up with some other solution than just unleashing the unrelenting might of the free market on them.
TheOtherHobbes
This is not an insurance problem, or a market problem, or an MBA econ problem.
It's a "Do we want cultural extinction or a relatively comfortable and habitable planet?" problem, which is not quite the same thing.
No amount of faith-based "We will adapt!" is going to make an impression until evidence appears that we are actually adapting in real, tangible ways.
Clearly, objectively, and empirically we are not. We are doing the opposite - pretending to ourselves the problem is going to be solved by continuing with the same mistakes which caused it.
amazingamazing
i unironically believe the insurance is a great signal for pricing externalities. if you want, imo, a comfortable planet, you should want everyone to have to pay, out of pocket, for the risk they’re taking.
the result would be people not living in areas that a risky, engaging in behaviors or risking, or partaking in things the contribute to the world becoming more volatile.
noirbot
But isn't the issue that I may have been living in an area for decades and because the government didn't correctly price/deter externalities, now I can't afford to live somewhere? The companies lobbying for the abilities to pollute and otherwise add risk to the world can afford to pay the higher insurance rates. The folks who live in the areas they put at risk often can't.
Insurance costs rising are a good signal, but they're essentially a way to tax normal people for the faults of governments and major companies. It does reflect the real risk, but it's not like the fact of people living in most of these areas is the reason the area is risky.
_huayra_
Totally agree, though there should still be insurance commisions and controls to ensure that any company selling policies in a given area is solvent enough to pay out. Otherwise you'll have fly-by-night insurance companies selling sham policies for cheap then folding up shop during the next natural disaster saying "oopsies guess it's the state's responsibility now".
tptacek
I think this is a pretty common and au courant take right now.
Former CEO of AXA, a major French insurer, famously announced that a world at +4°C would be "uninsurrable" [1].
That was 10 years ago.
It's true that most predictions about climate are wrong - most of the time, they're optimistic. (Not always, fortunately [2])
[1] https://www.leparisien.fr/economie/business/special-cop21-un...
[2] https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/emissions-are-no-longer-fo...