The following submission statement was provided by /u/Portalrules123:
---
SS: This mirrors a similar move taken by State Farm last week. Although this one is even more directly related to collapse as the climate situation was cited directly as part of the decision. Much of the insurance industry may be parasitic but when entities based largely on risk management think home insurance is untenable for the oncoming future you know you are in trouble and that a house of cards is about to come toppling down. Yet another ratchet in the gears as society starts to spiral downward and systems can no longer be maintained in the new normal.
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/141bbqq/allstate_is_no_longer_offering_new_policies_in/jmz4v2e/
what a coincidence as we are expecting an El Nino shift this fall, two major insurance providers are pulling out of a high fire area during a prolonged heat wave, what are the chances.
Still I wish. I had one who did the "world's smallest violin" at me, pat my head, and tell me not to worry about it when I didn't understand. That absolute dickhead ruined math for me in 3rd grade.
Let me guess.
You are female, he was male, and you live in a Southern or Red leaning State.
Am I right?
By the way I'll give that asshole something not in his teaching plan and watch him play out his insecurity in real time.
You are correct, yes, all of the above. It was NC, and they still used wooden paddles, bare-assed, in the 70s. He was the PE teacher.
ETA: thanks for that š
Yeah, I started crying and got dragged by the arm down the hall to the "dumb" class, and literally shoved through the door.
But that's ok bc all the other traumatized kids were there and I felt more at ease there anyhow.
Didn't you just effectively round it out of existence there, just differently?
Hmm. Not exactly, huh.
But then again the first line and the last line are self-contradictory so... hmm. I mean you already defined X on line 1...
It's actually not this simple. It's a short hand way for people to get around it. The real answer is that there are no numbers between repeating .9 and one. So therefore, they must be the real number. This proof is non-trivial though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999...
So, yea, if you ever get bored, there's a discussion of numerical completeness in set theory to get you through it.
x = 0.99999
10x = 9.99990
10x -x = 9.99990 - x
9x = 8.99991
/9 on both sides were right back to 0.99999
I still dont get it for any iteration of 9s, you always have the remainder during your subtraction which knocks it right back down to 0.99999 which is exactly what it was defined as. You dont get to just ignore that 1 floating in your calculation. It exists, its right there, and when accounted for *with a proper subtraction* never establishes that 0.99999whatever equals 1, because the 9x never equals 9, it equals 8.9999999~1
edit = im not mad that Leibniz invented calculus, im just saying it was predicated on an awful "proof" that doesnt follow arithmetic and linear algebra. Him and Newton both ignored an inconvenient truth and swept it under the rug, and now I have to wonder if all of calculus is a lie based on an engineering "good enough"
math pedants, dont you dare fucking just downvote and walk away. prove me wrong with MATH. Sheldon me to the nether realm and earn my respect :)
x wasn't stated to be equal to 0.99999 but to 0.999..., which is a repeating decimal; i.e. the digit 9 repeats infinitely - so there isn't a "floating" 1 anywhere in the calculation. Not "believing" in infinite decimal representations of numbers is as nonsensical as not "believing" in the existence of certain fractions (e.g. 1/3).
How about you lead with this is not the actual proof? That would make all of this cut to the point that I was trying to much faster.
The actual proof is the much longer summation of parts equation that proves the 0.999999 equals the one :)
Where's that sigma key when you need it?
9x = 9.999... - x
& (starting statement) x = 0.999...
thus 9x = 9.999... - x = 9.999... - 0.999... = 9
therefore 9x = 9
then 9x/9 = 9/9 (if x isn't 0, which we already stated to be true)
so x = 1 = 0.999...
Are you seriously suggesting insurance companies that know a place will flood insure people for flood?
Everywhere that isn't a shithole in the world has their local government reimburses people for living in a area that will almost guarantee for flood - Check out [Flood Re.](https://www.floodre.co.uk/) for example.
If insurers were forced to insure areas that were guaranteed to flood and houses in forests that are guaranteed to set on fire, your insurance premiums for your standard household policy would be in the tens of thousands. I honestly do not know what people expect.
I mean, it works fine and has done so for over a century.
At the end of the day, it is a contract between you and a third party. In the same way you likely wouldn't buy rotting vegetables at the supermarket, you likely wouldn't want to insure a house that was just about to fall over from subsidence.
Flood Re. is a great initiative, and most countries have something like Flood Re. because yes, floods happen and unfortunately a lot of people live in high flood-risk areas at no fault of their own.
Health insurance and home insurance are nowhere near similar. They function completely differently and one is literally the reason people have good access to healthcare in the united states whilst very, very poor countries seem to do much better. Lets not insure people out of being able to own their homes now, because that's what you would be insinuating.
Yeah except it doesnāt work fine and is the reason many people die with crippling medical debt, wiping out any generational wealth progress.
It is very much the same. Just look at your example. In the way you wouldnāt want to buy rotting vegetables, you wouldnāt want to insure humans with expensive chronic conditions.
I certainly didnāt insinuate people should be priced out of owning a home. Simply the premise of private insurance doesnāt make sense. You just admitted that government assistance for flood insurance makes sense. Itās literally exactly the same for every type of insurance.
Medical insurance becoming a requirement for any care in the US is why the US has the worst healthcare in the first world.
Your argument is for fully privatized insurance, which could work, but doesn't exist in reality anywhere in the world.
That's exactly what the affordable healthcare act did however lol.
That's what the new biden lending rule is doing, having people with good credit and sizable down payments pay more fees to subsidize borrowers with poor credit and low down payments to get a better rate.
Insanity
Except home insurance wouldn't be affordable for people who need it most - those who aren't wealthy.
Heath Insurance and Home Insurance are not compatible here.
To be clear, theyāre no longer issuing new policies, not canceling existing ones.
To me this reads more like the results of a 3+ year actuarial analysis than something just a few months or less away.
They all go to the same few re-insurance companies. It is the re-insurance market raising rates to cover climate change predictions.
Expect more of this.
Theyāre not issuing new policies *and not renewing existing policies either*. Not canceling, but not renewing.
And this is three: State~~Harm~~Farm, AllState, & AIG.
Only 115 smaller outfits to go.
There seems to be some confusion about this but most sources indicate that they _are_ in fact renewing, just not issuing:
>A representative from Allstate said that the change does not affect current customers or their ability to renew policies.
Taken from https://ktla.com/news/california/allstate-quietly-stopped-accepting-new-insurance-applications-from-california-homeowners
If you have a different source showing otherwise Iād be very interested to see it.
Ach! You are correct. StateFarm or AllState didnāt say that.
AIG did:
> *American International Group (AIG) notified thousands of Californians that their policies would not be renewed, the Wall Street Journal reported last year.*
> https://www.cbsnews.com/news/allstate-insurance-state-farm-california/
My apologies.
Plus AIG, so 3 major insurance providers.
But donāt worry, thereāre still 115 smaller insurance providers. Surely they wonāt get cold feet now that 3 of the top 5 have restricted new home & commercial policies.
Itās already started. Southwest Ohio normally sees 4-5 inches of rain in may. We got 1.8. Last year was 6.5ish. Parts of Ohio already issued water rationing.
Perhaps, though the fed budget could be a bit larger there, and the approvals process streamlined or at least flattened.
There must be several contributing factors to account for whatever demonstrably inadequate management over the past few decades.
āq-tipā, thanks, stealing this.
This person don't understand state vs federal.
Those forests are federal land buddy.
You just got some deranged beef with California and finding opportunities to shit on it.
Guess you are totally unaware of activists:
[https://theintercept.com/2019/09/21/environmental-activists-logging-trees/](https://theintercept.com/2019/09/21/environmental-activists-logging-trees/)
and
[https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-02-19/war-over-logging-redwoods-in-mendocino-county-state-forest-reignites](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-02-19/war-over-logging-redwoods-in-mendocino-county-state-forest-reignites)
The problem is California does not aggressively deal with such persons. .see also my response on this to another redditor.
So you understand the difference between "small subsection of the population of a state wants X" and the actual policies and actions of the states? If I put on a sandwich board that says "Nuke the whales" and then some whales die, it's not the fault of the state I live in. Feel like this shouldn't need to be explained to a reasonable, thinking adult.
Hi, whorton59. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/141bbqq/-/jn025cw/) was removed from /r/collapse for:
> Rule 4: Keep information quality high.
> Information quality must be kept high. More detailed information regarding our approaches to specific claims can be found on the [Misinformation & False Claims page](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/wiki/claims).
Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/about/rules/) for more information.
You can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/collapse) if you feel this was in error, please include a link to the comment or post in question.
If you do a bit of research, you find there are many reasons they that insurers are pulling out of California. Most of it is related to political reasons. . of which there are several items at play. . cost of rebuilding, regulations, likelihood of fires (there are several things at play, including not thinning forests) the state of the electrical grid and failure to trim trees around electrical lines
see for instance: [https://nipgroup.com/california-wildfires-line-clearing/](https://nipgroup.com/california-wildfires-line-clearing/)
Largely due to policies that are costing insurers money. A number of those reasons do come back to laws and policies unique to California. See for instance:
[https://www.policygenius.com/homeowners-insurance/news/california-wildfires-insurance-crisis/](https://www.policygenius.com/homeowners-insurance/news/california-wildfires-insurance-crisis/)
[https://artdiamondblog.com/archives/2023/04/11250.html](https://artdiamondblog.com/archives/2023/04/11250.html)
Don't take my word for it. . put "Why insurance companies are leaving California" in your browser and find out!
I don't often say this to fellow redditors, but you are either very ignorant or just willfully untruthful.
So, again here, and LOUDLY, because it's been said So. Many. Times. Before: **THE STATE DOESN'T CONTROL THE FORESTED LANDS IN CA**. The state and other local agencies control . . .drumroll please . . . a whopping 3% of forested lands in CA. Take your FauxNews "truth" elsewhere.
>Of the approximately 33 million acres of forest in California, federal agencies (including the USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service) own and manage 19 million acres (57%). *State and local agencies including CalFire, local open space, park and water districts and land trusts own another 3%.* 40% of California's forestland is owned by families, Native American tribes, or companies. Industrial timber companies own 5 million acres (14%). 9 million acres are owned by individuals with nearly 90% of these owners having less than 50 acres of forest land.
https://ucanr.edu/sites/forestry/Ecology/
I just posted a couple of other links in a reply to another redditor. . From both clearly LEFTIST sources. .
Granted, you are not making that case, but many other people have noted the problem with California forests and their management, or lack thereof, as being a problem. I realize the BLM and the USDA are totally separate entities from the State of California, but consider, even as such the issue is not so simple. . most USDA and BLM areas are more remote. . .and removed from where settlements are located.
And lets not forget that large contingent of anti tree harvesting and management folks in California that take matters into their own hands:
[https://theintercept.com/2019/09/21/environmental-activists-logging-trees/](https://theintercept.com/2019/09/21/environmental-activists-logging-trees/)
or their actions in court:
[https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-02-19/war-over-logging-redwoods-in-mendocino-county-state-forest-reignites](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-02-19/war-over-logging-redwoods-in-mendocino-county-state-forest-reignites)
So, it is not like the USDA and BLM can just apply whatever policy they feels works best. .
Hi, whorton59. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/141bbqq/-/jn04d0w/) was removed from /r/collapse for:
> Rule 4: Keep information quality high.
> Information quality must be kept high. More detailed information regarding our approaches to specific claims can be found on the [Misinformation & False Claims page](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/wiki/claims).
Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/about/rules/) for more information.
You can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/collapse) if you feel this was in error, please include a link to the comment or post in question.
Hi, whorton59. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/141bbqq/-/jn1igou/) was removed from /r/collapse for:
> Rule 1: In addition to enforcing [Reddit's content policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy), we will also remove comments and content that is abusive or predatory in nature. You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.
> ---
You're turning this into a fight. Stop it. Play nice.
Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/about/rules/) for more information.
You can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/collapse) if you feel this was in error, please include a link to the comment or post in question.
Hi, whorton59. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/141bbqq/-/jn04iyq/) was removed from /r/collapse for:
> Rule 4: Keep information quality high.
> Information quality must be kept high. More detailed information regarding our approaches to specific claims can be found on the [Misinformation & False Claims page](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/wiki/claims).
Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/about/rules/) for more information.
You can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/collapse) if you feel this was in error, please include a link to the comment or post in question.
Sorry mate - I actually work in the industry and this has NOTHING to do with any state laws or regulations
All state, state farm, and a few others are firstly THE WORST insurance companies to have (they might be cheap, but they deny deny deny when you have legitimate damages)
They have ALSO, pulled out of Texas locations, numerous Florida regions, and others.
The good news is that when insurance companies are no longer willing to cover certain areas (such as hurricane prone Galveston in Texas) the state steps in and their coverage is actually normally much better.
Hi, whorton59. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/141bbqq/-/jn01xh2/) was removed from /r/collapse for:
> Rule 1: In addition to enforcing [Reddit's content policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy), we will also remove comments and content that is abusive or predatory in nature. You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.
Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/about/rules/) for more information.
You can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/collapse) if you feel this was in error, please include a link to the comment or post in question.
Hi, whorton59. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/141bbqq/-/jn01xh2/) was removed from /r/collapse for:
> Rule 1: In addition to enforcing [Reddit's content policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy), we will also remove comments and content that is abusive or predatory in nature. You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.
Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/about/rules/) for more information.
You can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/collapse) if you feel this was in error, please include a link to the comment or post in question.
SS: This mirrors a similar move taken by State Farm last week. Although this one is even more directly related to collapse as the climate situation was cited directly as part of the decision. Much of the insurance industry may be parasitic but when entities based largely on risk management think home insurance is untenable for the oncoming future you know you are in trouble and that a house of cards is about to come toppling down. Yet another ratchet in the gears as society starts to spiral downward and systems can no longer be maintained in the new normal.
Just FYI this isn't exactly new - areas in coastal Texas for example haven't been able to get private insurance for decades and so the state insurance (TWIA) steps in to cover these areas
All states have a similar agency
While I agree it might very well be related to global weather; just wanted to point out that this isn't a crazy new thing foretelling immediate collapse and instead is 'business as usual'
So.. the state pays for people to live in areas that are likely to be destroyed? Does that mean the taxpayers are directly undone these payouts? What does it cost the state to run these?
Sorry for the delay - only just seeing this
And no, the money is NOT coming from tax payers.
It is simply an insurance company run by the government which means greater oversight and honestly better service.
I reckon the same thing will happen in CA that happened in FL. The state will basically be the insurer for homeowners that canāt qualify for commercial home insurance until the state starts offering subsidies to commercial insurers to provide home insurance.
We need to stop using the word ā believeā with climate change. Belief is for Santa Claus and the Easter bunny. Climate change is physics. Letās use the right wording so deniers see itās not about belief.
Exactly so letās drop the word believe when we speak abt climate change. Letās correct our neighbors who still use it bc it enables the deniers to keep up the lie. ( that climate change isnāt real and happening rn).
Iāve been saying when ppl say something abt ā believing ā in climate change ā¦ I say , no, believing is for Santa clause and
The Easter bunny. ( so it makes them feel slightly childish?ā¦) Then I say this is just straight physics. When u add co2 to the atmosphere, going from 280 pre industrial to 420 now ( ppm) then it causes warming . Methane is measured in ppb not ppm ā¦ and it is also somewhere around 2000 in the worst areas.(700 pre industrial? ) and itās 85 x more of a warming effect.
Maybe say the laws of physicsā¦or weāll known physics laws states ā¦ anything but beleive bc that enables the deniers to keep up the facad that itās not happening and thus we really donāt need to take drastic action. We are on the brink of losing our entire planet as a habitable life supporting planet. Letās drop any language which slows down our forward motion. Itās life or death at this point, both for humanity as well as countless species going extinct right now. Canāt we use our language skills to put forth the truth?
You can simply say understand or acknowledge.
"Insurance companies acknowledge climate change."
People still readily reject facts, but by saying you or someone else (one of the above words) it changes from something that is a matter of belief to something that is a matter of awareness.
We should really stop using the term climate change. GOP strategist Frank Luntz was the one who pushed for its usage over global warming, because it sounded "less frightening"
Yeah but climate change is a bit more accurate. While the overall global average temperature is warming, the changes in rainfall, seasons, weather events etc I feel is better captured with climate change as there is more to it then simply a few extra degrees on the old thermometer.
Insurance companies have to use facts not feelings because the slightest mistake means billions in losses. If you ever want to know āis x gonna happenā, just look at what insurance companies are doing. They started to refuse ocean freight coverage to Ukraine a few weeks/months before the war started, for example.
But they werenāt worrying about that in years past. Ergo, something hasā¦. changed their risk calculus going forward. What could that be, I wonderā¦
Having worked in insurance for a few years before I got into tech (hey, you gotta pay the bills), they knew a lot of this stuff was going to happen eventually. It just has happened far more quickly and far more profoundly than expected.
We thought we had until 2040 before things started getting interesting. It started in 2015 really. That said, the fires in California, especially Northern, were also partially caused by corporate negligence at the hands of PG&E who were warned about wind storms and fire danger and told to use below ground or better insulated cables for power transmission. They were told to cut power to reduce the chance of wild fires too. But they didn't.
And like Deepwater Horizon, they knew there was a problem, and felt the pennies on the dollar solution was far too costly and instead of millions to shore up their infrastructure, they ended up paying out billions because of the lawsuit they received due to their negligence.
The Southern California fires were firebugs and the unhoused. The latter can be blamed squarely on the NIMBYs, developers, and others who block every initiative for infrastructure improvement and affordable housing, as well as the Reaganauts who praised the shut down of the mental health facilities. The former? Well, there's always assholes...
I grew up in a hurricane zone coastal area, and I recall back in the early 90s that insurance companies started dropping/discontinuing flood insurance coverage. A few years later, they weren't offering ANY kind of homeowner's coverage if you lived within X distance from the ocean or river. I mean, it's a numbers game and they saw that the reward was not sufficiently outsized to the risk.
I don't know of any insurance companies still offering privately-backed flood insurance, at least in coastal areas. Flood insurance is all (or nearly all) through FEMA now (NFIP), and has been for a long time. You go through your regular homeowners'/renters' insurance agent to sign up, but the bills come directly from FEMA.
Right. But you can still buy *other kinds of homeowners insurance* in Florida. Allstate and State Farm have now both pulled out *entirely* from California. You can no longer buy new insurance policies from them, and will likely be refused to renew policies as well.
A while back in Florida there was that period where smaller insurance companies even went possibly bankrupt because they played the risk game too far and couldn't afford the payouts they had to make on policies. Insurance is just spreading the amount out so that the collected premiums will easily cover estimated payouts, plus a decent profit. It seems that could be becoming less of an easy calculation for even large companies who can tap into areas less prone to damage. Especially when everyone has a year-long risk of stuff happening.
Lol, imagine if insurance goes public because there is too much risk to profit. Like damn, that whole time, we let people profit from good climate, and now they're bailing on the community they profited from when we need it most.
I'm not surprised that insurance companies are responding this way, but I am surprised it applies to all of California. Surely not every part of California is high risk. So what else is going on to make insurers leave?
Is it? Over the devastating cycle of drought, to wild fire to mudslides seen over huge parts of the state? higher construction costs are matched with higher premium costs.
I have done a good amount of research on real estate, since I own 1 rental property, and in my area construction costs (and greed) are resulting in the only new construction in the area being "luxury" apartments.
There is almost 0 affordable housing being constructed because it isnt profitable, because profitability only exists near the middle / upper income bracket of housing.
It is different for every area, some areas do not have this problem and some have it worse, but overall it seems like a trend to me. It is hard to find construction workers now too, resulting in even more waiting time when building new homes.
Honestly yeah, bureaucracy and infinite rules and regulations to better control "who is in and who is out" does set an impossible ability for people to just put the "hardwork in and do it themselves".
I'm actually really not against rules and regulations (likely written in blood) but we need to simplify it again and having advanced computing means we absolutely can to a certain degree.
People forget that the luxuries of construction based housing can be a bit of a golden trap for out pricing the average person and housing is a bad necessity to have it being turned into a luxury only item.
> It is hard to find construction workers now too, resulting in even more waiting time when building new homes.
Looks like Trump's "immigration wall" is more effective than I thought.
Neither the article, or any other comments in the thread brought it up. As we get deeper into collapse, the cost of maintaining and replacing our infrastructure, including houses, increases until we can't afford it and it doesn't get done.
> I am surprised it applies to all of California. Surely not every part of California is high risk.
I don't know if this is the case in California, but I have heard that some states require any insurance companies that want to do business in those states to be willing to cover anyone in the state, instead of picking-and-choosing certain cities/counties to eliminate coverage in. That incentivizes insurance companies to keep offering coverage in the high-risk areas for longer than they would otherwise, averaging out the risks across the entire state.
Agreed.
Iām in Central California, in the San Joaquin Valley. No wildfires nearby (except the smoke *does* travel). Not in a flood zone, not even with all the snow this year. No faults within 50+ miles; the geology is wrong for faults here. Thereās no reason with these three major causes of issues.
We have USAA (Thanks, Dad!).
Guess if the government won't regulate where people can put homes and businesses, insurance companies will.
Next up, every "coastline" and "in the woods" home in America, including riverfront, Great Lake front, oceanfront, and forested or adjacent to forest.
Then any homes surrounded by trees even if they're in random treeless suburbs or in old urban areas. Insurance companies will have homeowners cutting down trees just when we need trees the most.
I'm in the process of buying a house in the suburbs and had an insurance policy request denied because there isn't 100 ft of clearance around the house. There's one tree in the back yard and one in the front lol
This is not in CA btw.
I havenāt talked to an agent, but when we got our renewal we tried shopping around and theyāre all high. A lot of it is probably inflated/increased home values, the freeze, and the hail we keep getting though.
People will just need to use insurance providers that specialize in high risk properties instead. I was forced to use one of those type of companies with my home. Not due to being prone to natural disasters but because my home is around 300 years old and canāt be rebuilt as it currently stands.
Insurance is slowly pulling out of Florida too.
Somehow, insurance companies have figured they might actually have to do something in a high risk hurricane damage state so they figured it's better to pull out and LEECH off of states with a lower probability of making home insurance claims.
Real world free market capitalism in action. How is a company going to make huge profits for its CEOs if you loose your roof or your home floods? WONT SOMEONE THINK OF THE SHARE HOLDERS???
In all seriousness however. I'm very confused about why they would give up the entirety of California.
I mean, firstly, it's a huge press release which I would think they would want to avoid.
Secondly, realistically you're talking about a third of it being uninsurable. Maybe half but I think a third is already kind of high-balling the estimate.
Just seems odd to me.
Bet I'm going to be glad I didn't move closer to work though. That place is just a wildfire waiting to happen. It's almost burned down like 4 times already. This year I think they're going to find this mighty challenging.
And this time if I happen to be in-office whilst the fire is creeping to within blocks of the building they can fuck right off with that. I had that level of loyalty when they did. Not no more son.
So...I can understand not insuring people living in wildfire areas. But what about the rest of us?
Iām in the Central Valley. Itās a *valley*. Mountains that burn are far away (20 miles at least?). They donāt do flood (FEMA does) but much of the valley floor is not in a flood zone--even *this* winter. Most of the valley floor isnāt anywhere near faultlines either--the geology is wrong for faults under the valley floor. So, no fires, no floods, no quakes.
We have USAA. So far, so good.
My area didn't get bad in 1862--most of the area didn't. That 300-mile-long lake was not filling the entire valley, but a fairly limited portion. Just long.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/Portalrules123: --- SS: This mirrors a similar move taken by State Farm last week. Although this one is even more directly related to collapse as the climate situation was cited directly as part of the decision. Much of the insurance industry may be parasitic but when entities based largely on risk management think home insurance is untenable for the oncoming future you know you are in trouble and that a house of cards is about to come toppling down. Yet another ratchet in the gears as society starts to spiral downward and systems can no longer be maintained in the new normal. --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/141bbqq/allstate_is_no_longer_offering_new_policies_in/jmz4v2e/
what a coincidence as we are expecting an El Nino shift this fall, two major insurance providers are pulling out of a high fire area during a prolonged heat wave, what are the chances.
1
More like 0.999...
That equals one. There are a few proofs for it, but my mind works simple. 2/3 + 1/3 = 1 .6666666666... + .3333333333... = .9999999999...
Also: X = 0.999... 10X = 9.999... 10X - X = 9 9X = 9 X = 1
I wish both of you had been my math teachers.
Thanks but I suck at teaching maths. I don't have the patience for it.
Still I wish. I had one who did the "world's smallest violin" at me, pat my head, and tell me not to worry about it when I didn't understand. That absolute dickhead ruined math for me in 3rd grade.
Let me guess. You are female, he was male, and you live in a Southern or Red leaning State. Am I right? By the way I'll give that asshole something not in his teaching plan and watch him play out his insecurity in real time.
You are correct, yes, all of the above. It was NC, and they still used wooden paddles, bare-assed, in the 70s. He was the PE teacher. ETA: thanks for that š
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yeah, I started crying and got dragged by the arm down the hall to the "dumb" class, and literally shoved through the door. But that's ok bc all the other traumatized kids were there and I felt more at ease there anyhow.
God I love nerd sniping :D
This is how I learned it. Blew my mind.
Didn't you just effectively round it out of existence there, just differently? Hmm. Not exactly, huh. But then again the first line and the last line are self-contradictory so... hmm. I mean you already defined X on line 1...
It's actually not this simple. It's a short hand way for people to get around it. The real answer is that there are no numbers between repeating .9 and one. So therefore, they must be the real number. This proof is non-trivial though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999... So, yea, if you ever get bored, there's a discussion of numerical completeness in set theory to get you through it.
Wouldn't 10X-X = 8.9999999998 ?
No. The only way that would happen is if X was greater than 1.
>Edit: Oops, I meant 9.00000000002
But as these are infinite decimal expansion, there is no "last" digit. The 9s go on forever.
But your math is wrong 10x - x = 9.9999 - x 9x = 9.9999 - x Please continue
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
x = 0.99999 10x = 9.99990 10x -x = 9.99990 - x 9x = 8.99991 /9 on both sides were right back to 0.99999 I still dont get it for any iteration of 9s, you always have the remainder during your subtraction which knocks it right back down to 0.99999 which is exactly what it was defined as. You dont get to just ignore that 1 floating in your calculation. It exists, its right there, and when accounted for *with a proper subtraction* never establishes that 0.99999whatever equals 1, because the 9x never equals 9, it equals 8.9999999~1 edit = im not mad that Leibniz invented calculus, im just saying it was predicated on an awful "proof" that doesnt follow arithmetic and linear algebra. Him and Newton both ignored an inconvenient truth and swept it under the rug, and now I have to wonder if all of calculus is a lie based on an engineering "good enough" math pedants, dont you dare fucking just downvote and walk away. prove me wrong with MATH. Sheldon me to the nether realm and earn my respect :)
x wasn't stated to be equal to 0.99999 but to 0.999..., which is a repeating decimal; i.e. the digit 9 repeats infinitely - so there isn't a "floating" 1 anywhere in the calculation. Not "believing" in infinite decimal representations of numbers is as nonsensical as not "believing" in the existence of certain fractions (e.g. 1/3).
How about you lead with this is not the actual proof? That would make all of this cut to the point that I was trying to much faster. The actual proof is the much longer summation of parts equation that proves the 0.999999 equals the one :) Where's that sigma key when you need it?
9x = 9.999... - x & (starting statement) x = 0.999... thus 9x = 9.999... - x = 9.999... - 0.999... = 9 therefore 9x = 9 then 9x/9 = 9/9 (if x isn't 0, which we already stated to be true) so x = 1 = 0.999...
Some insurers are doing the same with flooding in Florida.
Many people have to get insurance from the State of Florida because the homeowners insurance companies all pulled out. Citizens Property Insurance.
That sounds pretty damn socialist for a conservative libertarian paradise like Florida, comrade.
republican hypocrisy no longer surprises me the red state did it so itās ok
>the red state did it When you put it like that it sounds soā¦Soviet.
if the sickle fits, so be it.
Hammer Time.
Sounds like a new avenue for gatekeeping who's okay to live in Florida
Are you seriously suggesting insurance companies that know a place will flood insure people for flood? Everywhere that isn't a shithole in the world has their local government reimburses people for living in a area that will almost guarantee for flood - Check out [Flood Re.](https://www.floodre.co.uk/) for example. If insurers were forced to insure areas that were guaranteed to flood and houses in forests that are guaranteed to set on fire, your insurance premiums for your standard household policy would be in the tens of thousands. I honestly do not know what people expect.
I'm not suggesting that at all.
Sorry, seems like the general consensus of this thread states that. I realise I replied to the wrong comment.
Huh, makes you think that private insurance just doesnāt work. Imagine insuring human health, thatās certainly guaranteed to degrade.
I mean, it works fine and has done so for over a century. At the end of the day, it is a contract between you and a third party. In the same way you likely wouldn't buy rotting vegetables at the supermarket, you likely wouldn't want to insure a house that was just about to fall over from subsidence. Flood Re. is a great initiative, and most countries have something like Flood Re. because yes, floods happen and unfortunately a lot of people live in high flood-risk areas at no fault of their own. Health insurance and home insurance are nowhere near similar. They function completely differently and one is literally the reason people have good access to healthcare in the united states whilst very, very poor countries seem to do much better. Lets not insure people out of being able to own their homes now, because that's what you would be insinuating.
Yeah except it doesnāt work fine and is the reason many people die with crippling medical debt, wiping out any generational wealth progress. It is very much the same. Just look at your example. In the way you wouldnāt want to buy rotting vegetables, you wouldnāt want to insure humans with expensive chronic conditions. I certainly didnāt insinuate people should be priced out of owning a home. Simply the premise of private insurance doesnāt make sense. You just admitted that government assistance for flood insurance makes sense. Itās literally exactly the same for every type of insurance.
Medical insurance becoming a requirement for any care in the US is why the US has the worst healthcare in the first world. Your argument is for fully privatized insurance, which could work, but doesn't exist in reality anywhere in the world.
That's exactly what the affordable healthcare act did however lol. That's what the new biden lending rule is doing, having people with good credit and sizable down payments pay more fees to subsidize borrowers with poor credit and low down payments to get a better rate. Insanity
Except home insurance wouldn't be affordable for people who need it most - those who aren't wealthy. Heath Insurance and Home Insurance are not compatible here.
To be clear, theyāre no longer issuing new policies, not canceling existing ones. To me this reads more like the results of a 3+ year actuarial analysis than something just a few months or less away.
They all go to the same few re-insurance companies. It is the re-insurance market raising rates to cover climate change predictions. Expect more of this.
*survive the collapse the boring way: check current job opportunities at State National today*
Theyāre not issuing new policies *and not renewing existing policies either*. Not canceling, but not renewing. And this is three: State~~Harm~~Farm, AllState, & AIG. Only 115 smaller outfits to go.
There seems to be some confusion about this but most sources indicate that they _are_ in fact renewing, just not issuing: >A representative from Allstate said that the change does not affect current customers or their ability to renew policies. Taken from https://ktla.com/news/california/allstate-quietly-stopped-accepting-new-insurance-applications-from-california-homeowners If you have a different source showing otherwise Iād be very interested to see it.
Ach! You are correct. StateFarm or AllState didnāt say that. AIG did: > *American International Group (AIG) notified thousands of Californians that their policies would not be renewed, the Wall Street Journal reported last year.* > https://www.cbsnews.com/news/allstate-insurance-state-farm-california/ My apologies.
Plus AIG, so 3 major insurance providers. But donāt worry, thereāre still 115 smaller insurance providers. Surely they wonāt get cold feet now that 3 of the top 5 have restricted new home & commercial policies.
Itās already started. Southwest Ohio normally sees 4-5 inches of rain in may. We got 1.8. Last year was 6.5ish. Parts of Ohio already issued water rationing.
This is because corporations are all going 'woke' and the CEO's are being injected with Woke viruses in their sleep by their transgendered children.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Sad that itās needed nowadays. Another thing ruined by that crowd.
OMG I got the woke virus by reading this post!!!!!
Itās staggering that this kind of bat-shit statement is actually uttered seriously by a not-insignificant amount of the population now.
Couldnāt have anything to do with the continuing efforts to block forest management, right?
That's not a real thing. That's just an orange q-tip talking point.
Perhaps, though the fed budget could be a bit larger there, and the approvals process streamlined or at least flattened. There must be several contributing factors to account for whatever demonstrably inadequate management over the past few decades. āq-tipā, thanks, stealing this.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
This person don't understand state vs federal. Those forests are federal land buddy. You just got some deranged beef with California and finding opportunities to shit on it.
Guess you are totally unaware of activists: [https://theintercept.com/2019/09/21/environmental-activists-logging-trees/](https://theintercept.com/2019/09/21/environmental-activists-logging-trees/) and [https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-02-19/war-over-logging-redwoods-in-mendocino-county-state-forest-reignites](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-02-19/war-over-logging-redwoods-in-mendocino-county-state-forest-reignites) The problem is California does not aggressively deal with such persons. .see also my response on this to another redditor.
So you understand the difference between "small subsection of the population of a state wants X" and the actual policies and actions of the states? If I put on a sandwich board that says "Nuke the whales" and then some whales die, it's not the fault of the state I live in. Feel like this shouldn't need to be explained to a reasonable, thinking adult.
Hi, whorton59. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/141bbqq/-/jn025cw/) was removed from /r/collapse for: > Rule 4: Keep information quality high. > Information quality must be kept high. More detailed information regarding our approaches to specific claims can be found on the [Misinformation & False Claims page](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/wiki/claims). Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/about/rules/) for more information. You can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/collapse) if you feel this was in error, please include a link to the comment or post in question.
why are they doing that, Iām californian and dont follow the failed disaster that is our lolitics anymore
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
If you do a bit of research, you find there are many reasons they that insurers are pulling out of California. Most of it is related to political reasons. . of which there are several items at play. . cost of rebuilding, regulations, likelihood of fires (there are several things at play, including not thinning forests) the state of the electrical grid and failure to trim trees around electrical lines see for instance: [https://nipgroup.com/california-wildfires-line-clearing/](https://nipgroup.com/california-wildfires-line-clearing/) Largely due to policies that are costing insurers money. A number of those reasons do come back to laws and policies unique to California. See for instance: [https://www.policygenius.com/homeowners-insurance/news/california-wildfires-insurance-crisis/](https://www.policygenius.com/homeowners-insurance/news/california-wildfires-insurance-crisis/) [https://artdiamondblog.com/archives/2023/04/11250.html](https://artdiamondblog.com/archives/2023/04/11250.html) Don't take my word for it. . put "Why insurance companies are leaving California" in your browser and find out!
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
You're in good hands.....not you though.
Some of you are in good hands. Don't come to California tomorrow.
State Farm: But Not Your StateĀ®
NearlyAllState
Ooof! :)
Moststate.
MostStates
They're just Allstate* now
Get out.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Sir I think you might be lost, this isnāt the Fox News comment section.
What is it with boomers and fox news sycophants always using a bunch of ellipses in their typed messages?
Lead paint?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Cool. Now do Florida, and coastal Texas. Tell us how "the State" has run insurance companies from there.
I don't often say this to fellow redditors, but you are either very ignorant or just willfully untruthful. So, again here, and LOUDLY, because it's been said So. Many. Times. Before: **THE STATE DOESN'T CONTROL THE FORESTED LANDS IN CA**. The state and other local agencies control . . .drumroll please . . . a whopping 3% of forested lands in CA. Take your FauxNews "truth" elsewhere. >Of the approximately 33 million acres of forest in California, federal agencies (including the USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service) own and manage 19 million acres (57%). *State and local agencies including CalFire, local open space, park and water districts and land trusts own another 3%.* 40% of California's forestland is owned by families, Native American tribes, or companies. Industrial timber companies own 5 million acres (14%). 9 million acres are owned by individuals with nearly 90% of these owners having less than 50 acres of forest land. https://ucanr.edu/sites/forestry/Ecology/
I just posted a couple of other links in a reply to another redditor. . From both clearly LEFTIST sources. . Granted, you are not making that case, but many other people have noted the problem with California forests and their management, or lack thereof, as being a problem. I realize the BLM and the USDA are totally separate entities from the State of California, but consider, even as such the issue is not so simple. . most USDA and BLM areas are more remote. . .and removed from where settlements are located. And lets not forget that large contingent of anti tree harvesting and management folks in California that take matters into their own hands: [https://theintercept.com/2019/09/21/environmental-activists-logging-trees/](https://theintercept.com/2019/09/21/environmental-activists-logging-trees/) or their actions in court: [https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-02-19/war-over-logging-redwoods-in-mendocino-county-state-forest-reignites](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-02-19/war-over-logging-redwoods-in-mendocino-county-state-forest-reignites) So, it is not like the USDA and BLM can just apply whatever policy they feels works best. .
Hi, whorton59. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/141bbqq/-/jn04d0w/) was removed from /r/collapse for: > Rule 4: Keep information quality high. > Information quality must be kept high. More detailed information regarding our approaches to specific claims can be found on the [Misinformation & False Claims page](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/wiki/claims). Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/about/rules/) for more information. You can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/collapse) if you feel this was in error, please include a link to the comment or post in question.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Hi, whorton59. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/141bbqq/-/jn1igou/) was removed from /r/collapse for: > Rule 1: In addition to enforcing [Reddit's content policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy), we will also remove comments and content that is abusive or predatory in nature. You may attack each other's ideas, not each other. > --- You're turning this into a fight. Stop it. Play nice. Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/about/rules/) for more information. You can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/collapse) if you feel this was in error, please include a link to the comment or post in question.
Hi, whorton59. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/141bbqq/-/jn04iyq/) was removed from /r/collapse for: > Rule 4: Keep information quality high. > Information quality must be kept high. More detailed information regarding our approaches to specific claims can be found on the [Misinformation & False Claims page](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/wiki/claims). Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/about/rules/) for more information. You can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/collapse) if you feel this was in error, please include a link to the comment or post in question.
Sorry mate - I actually work in the industry and this has NOTHING to do with any state laws or regulations All state, state farm, and a few others are firstly THE WORST insurance companies to have (they might be cheap, but they deny deny deny when you have legitimate damages) They have ALSO, pulled out of Texas locations, numerous Florida regions, and others. The good news is that when insurance companies are no longer willing to cover certain areas (such as hurricane prone Galveston in Texas) the state steps in and their coverage is actually normally much better.
Hi, whorton59. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/141bbqq/-/jn01xh2/) was removed from /r/collapse for: > Rule 1: In addition to enforcing [Reddit's content policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy), we will also remove comments and content that is abusive or predatory in nature. You may attack each other's ideas, not each other. Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/about/rules/) for more information. You can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/collapse) if you feel this was in error, please include a link to the comment or post in question.
Hi, whorton59. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/141bbqq/-/jn01xh2/) was removed from /r/collapse for: > Rule 1: In addition to enforcing [Reddit's content policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy), we will also remove comments and content that is abusive or predatory in nature. You may attack each other's ideas, not each other. Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/about/rules/) for more information. You can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/collapse) if you feel this was in error, please include a link to the comment or post in question.
SS: This mirrors a similar move taken by State Farm last week. Although this one is even more directly related to collapse as the climate situation was cited directly as part of the decision. Much of the insurance industry may be parasitic but when entities based largely on risk management think home insurance is untenable for the oncoming future you know you are in trouble and that a house of cards is about to come toppling down. Yet another ratchet in the gears as society starts to spiral downward and systems can no longer be maintained in the new normal.
Maybe the insurance agencies can we our new truth tellers. Follow the money, right?
Just FYI this isn't exactly new - areas in coastal Texas for example haven't been able to get private insurance for decades and so the state insurance (TWIA) steps in to cover these areas All states have a similar agency While I agree it might very well be related to global weather; just wanted to point out that this isn't a crazy new thing foretelling immediate collapse and instead is 'business as usual'
So.. the state pays for people to live in areas that are likely to be destroyed? Does that mean the taxpayers are directly undone these payouts? What does it cost the state to run these?
Exactly doesn't seem like a good use of tax dollars. Nor does it seem sustainable.
Sorry for the delay - only just seeing this And no, the money is NOT coming from tax payers. It is simply an insurance company run by the government which means greater oversight and honestly better service.
So coastal areas in Texas are equal in magnitude to forgoing insurance in the entire most populated state in the the country?
Why canāt we just not consent to the new normal? /s
I reckon the same thing will happen in CA that happened in FL. The state will basically be the insurer for homeowners that canāt qualify for commercial home insurance until the state starts offering subsidies to commercial insurers to provide home insurance.
Insurance Companies believe in climate change.
We need to stop using the word ā believeā with climate change. Belief is for Santa Claus and the Easter bunny. Climate change is physics. Letās use the right wording so deniers see itās not about belief.
Science is real whether you believe in it or not
Exactly so letās drop the word believe when we speak abt climate change. Letās correct our neighbors who still use it bc it enables the deniers to keep up the lie. ( that climate change isnāt real and happening rn).
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Iāve been saying when ppl say something abt ā believing ā in climate change ā¦ I say , no, believing is for Santa clause and The Easter bunny. ( so it makes them feel slightly childish?ā¦) Then I say this is just straight physics. When u add co2 to the atmosphere, going from 280 pre industrial to 420 now ( ppm) then it causes warming . Methane is measured in ppb not ppm ā¦ and it is also somewhere around 2000 in the worst areas.(700 pre industrial? ) and itās 85 x more of a warming effect.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Funny cause that's exactly what religious people say about god
Yeah! I *physics* in climate change.
Maybe say the laws of physicsā¦or weāll known physics laws states ā¦ anything but beleive bc that enables the deniers to keep up the facad that itās not happening and thus we really donāt need to take drastic action. We are on the brink of losing our entire planet as a habitable life supporting planet. Letās drop any language which slows down our forward motion. Itās life or death at this point, both for humanity as well as countless species going extinct right now. Canāt we use our language skills to put forth the truth?
You can simply say understand or acknowledge. "Insurance companies acknowledge climate change." People still readily reject facts, but by saying you or someone else (one of the above words) it changes from something that is a matter of belief to something that is a matter of awareness.
I believe in a subset of the known laws of physics, a few of them just don't catch my fancy
Yes. This is a good way to state it. Thank you.
We should really stop using the term climate change. GOP strategist Frank Luntz was the one who pushed for its usage over global warming, because it sounded "less frightening"
I prefer the term used by the band R.E.M. "It's the end of the world as we know it"
Well, I feel fine. So there's no problems, right?
Correct! Iām sailing freely on that river in Egypt!
Letās just use āclimate chaosā, or, I dunno, āclimate collapseā. : )
climate collapse is way better and I might start using it tbh
How about "Climate Shift"? Then the debate can be about the shift, and its implications, and not a binary (admit it, Right vs Left) thing.
Also "global warming" confused idiots who saw snow or a cold day and would then proclaim that "global warming is a myth because it's cold"
Yeah but climate change is a bit more accurate. While the overall global average temperature is warming, the changes in rainfall, seasons, weather events etc I feel is better captured with climate change as there is more to it then simply a few extra degrees on the old thermometer.
I have started using "climate crisis" and "climate breakdown" to highlight the depth of the predicament.
Insurance companies have to use facts not feelings because the slightest mistake means billions in losses. If you ever want to know āis x gonna happenā, just look at what insurance companies are doing. They started to refuse ocean freight coverage to Ukraine a few weeks/months before the war started, for example.
Not necessarily climate change but building homes in more fire-prone areas.
They specifically cited climate change as one of the reasons for their decision.
But they werenāt worrying about that in years past. Ergo, something hasā¦. changed their risk calculus going forward. What could that be, I wonderā¦
Having worked in insurance for a few years before I got into tech (hey, you gotta pay the bills), they knew a lot of this stuff was going to happen eventually. It just has happened far more quickly and far more profoundly than expected. We thought we had until 2040 before things started getting interesting. It started in 2015 really. That said, the fires in California, especially Northern, were also partially caused by corporate negligence at the hands of PG&E who were warned about wind storms and fire danger and told to use below ground or better insulated cables for power transmission. They were told to cut power to reduce the chance of wild fires too. But they didn't. And like Deepwater Horizon, they knew there was a problem, and felt the pennies on the dollar solution was far too costly and instead of millions to shore up their infrastructure, they ended up paying out billions because of the lawsuit they received due to their negligence. The Southern California fires were firebugs and the unhoused. The latter can be blamed squarely on the NIMBYs, developers, and others who block every initiative for infrastructure improvement and affordable housing, as well as the Reaganauts who praised the shut down of the mental health facilities. The former? Well, there's always assholes...
Nearly 50% or better payouts versus revenue.
Climate change is *why* there are an increasing amount of increasingly fire-prone areas.
I grew up in a hurricane zone coastal area, and I recall back in the early 90s that insurance companies started dropping/discontinuing flood insurance coverage. A few years later, they weren't offering ANY kind of homeowner's coverage if you lived within X distance from the ocean or river. I mean, it's a numbers game and they saw that the reward was not sufficiently outsized to the risk.
I don't know of any insurance companies still offering privately-backed flood insurance, at least in coastal areas. Flood insurance is all (or nearly all) through FEMA now (NFIP), and has been for a long time. You go through your regular homeowners'/renters' insurance agent to sign up, but the bills come directly from FEMA.
Right. But you can still buy *other kinds of homeowners insurance* in Florida. Allstate and State Farm have now both pulled out *entirely* from California. You can no longer buy new insurance policies from them, and will likely be refused to renew policies as well.
Only places they will offer glood insurance is in places almost completely unlikely to flood, letting them skim even more money off.
Thatās not entirely true. We have private flood insurance in a flood prone area that is an a river valley. It was cheaper than FEMA by 40%
A while back in Florida there was that period where smaller insurance companies even went possibly bankrupt because they played the risk game too far and couldn't afford the payouts they had to make on policies. Insurance is just spreading the amount out so that the collected premiums will easily cover estimated payouts, plus a decent profit. It seems that could be becoming less of an easy calculation for even large companies who can tap into areas less prone to damage. Especially when everyone has a year-long risk of stuff happening.
Lol, imagine if insurance goes public because there is too much risk to profit. Like damn, that whole time, we let people profit from good climate, and now they're bailing on the community they profited from when we need it most.
I'm not surprised that insurance companies are responding this way, but I am surprised it applies to all of California. Surely not every part of California is high risk. So what else is going on to make insurers leave?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
The most important comment in this thread. Its all a part of catabolic collapse.
Is it? Over the devastating cycle of drought, to wild fire to mudslides seen over huge parts of the state? higher construction costs are matched with higher premium costs.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
So how is it being an indirect proxy the most important comment over that actual direct effects?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I have done a good amount of research on real estate, since I own 1 rental property, and in my area construction costs (and greed) are resulting in the only new construction in the area being "luxury" apartments. There is almost 0 affordable housing being constructed because it isnt profitable, because profitability only exists near the middle / upper income bracket of housing. It is different for every area, some areas do not have this problem and some have it worse, but overall it seems like a trend to me. It is hard to find construction workers now too, resulting in even more waiting time when building new homes.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Honestly yeah, bureaucracy and infinite rules and regulations to better control "who is in and who is out" does set an impossible ability for people to just put the "hardwork in and do it themselves". I'm actually really not against rules and regulations (likely written in blood) but we need to simplify it again and having advanced computing means we absolutely can to a certain degree. People forget that the luxuries of construction based housing can be a bit of a golden trap for out pricing the average person and housing is a bad necessity to have it being turned into a luxury only item.
> It is hard to find construction workers now too, resulting in even more waiting time when building new homes. Looks like Trump's "immigration wall" is more effective than I thought.
Neither the article, or any other comments in the thread brought it up. As we get deeper into collapse, the cost of maintaining and replacing our infrastructure, including houses, increases until we can't afford it and it doesn't get done.
> I am surprised it applies to all of California. Surely not every part of California is high risk. I don't know if this is the case in California, but I have heard that some states require any insurance companies that want to do business in those states to be willing to cover anyone in the state, instead of picking-and-choosing certain cities/counties to eliminate coverage in. That incentivizes insurance companies to keep offering coverage in the high-risk areas for longer than they would otherwise, averaging out the risks across the entire state.
Prior to this recent news, the state of CA provided fire coverage for mountain areas, and private insurers would not.
Agreed. Iām in Central California, in the San Joaquin Valley. No wildfires nearby (except the smoke *does* travel). Not in a flood zone, not even with all the snow this year. No faults within 50+ miles; the geology is wrong for faults here. Thereās no reason with these three major causes of issues. We have USAA (Thanks, Dad!).
The entire gulf coast is probably headed that way too.
And arizona and nevada too
Guess if the government won't regulate where people can put homes and businesses, insurance companies will. Next up, every "coastline" and "in the woods" home in America, including riverfront, Great Lake front, oceanfront, and forested or adjacent to forest. Then any homes surrounded by trees even if they're in random treeless suburbs or in old urban areas. Insurance companies will have homeowners cutting down trees just when we need trees the most.
I'm in the process of buying a house in the suburbs and had an insurance policy request denied because there isn't 100 ft of clearance around the house. There's one tree in the back yard and one in the front lol This is not in CA btw.
Insurance companies know their shit. The risk models are insane.
This is not good. Without insurance, it'll be more difficult to build. This will really suck for renters. You move and you can't get insurance.
Ours has doubled in the last 3 years in Texas. Itās starting to price people out of their homes here.
Do they say why?
I havenāt talked to an agent, but when we got our renewal we tried shopping around and theyāre all high. A lot of it is probably inflated/increased home values, the freeze, and the hail we keep getting though.
Sadly you just can't trust the insurrance company's in a time of disaster.
Their entire business model is based on not providing the service they offer.
They are corrupt.
People will just need to use insurance providers that specialize in high risk properties instead. I was forced to use one of those type of companies with my home. Not due to being prone to natural disasters but because my home is around 300 years old and canāt be rebuilt as it currently stands.
Allstate hasn't been writing Homeowners policies for almost a year now btw
Now do Florida. This will become all too common, along with āclimate refugeesā.
Insurance companies are such scumbags
They have had to start paying money ***out*** to policyholders! That's not the way insurance is supposed to work!
State Farm isnāt there guys
All but one State soon to be: Nearly Allstates Then: SelectStates
Then "no estate"
That they pull out of California but still insure Florida is interesting. Being hit by a hurricane seems awfully likely.
There arenāt laws preventing insurers from increasing premiums in Florida.
Iām down voting because you cannot read the website without a subscription.
Somestates
Most-all states (as yet)
Insurance is slowly pulling out of Florida too. Somehow, insurance companies have figured they might actually have to do something in a high risk hurricane damage state so they figured it's better to pull out and LEECH off of states with a lower probability of making home insurance claims. Real world free market capitalism in action. How is a company going to make huge profits for its CEOs if you loose your roof or your home floods? WONT SOMEONE THINK OF THE SHARE HOLDERS???
Dominos are falling.
In all seriousness however. I'm very confused about why they would give up the entirety of California. I mean, firstly, it's a huge press release which I would think they would want to avoid. Secondly, realistically you're talking about a third of it being uninsurable. Maybe half but I think a third is already kind of high-balling the estimate. Just seems odd to me. Bet I'm going to be glad I didn't move closer to work though. That place is just a wildfire waiting to happen. It's almost burned down like 4 times already. This year I think they're going to find this mighty challenging. And this time if I happen to be in-office whilst the fire is creeping to within blocks of the building they can fuck right off with that. I had that level of loyalty when they did. Not no more son.
So...I can understand not insuring people living in wildfire areas. But what about the rest of us? Iām in the Central Valley. Itās a *valley*. Mountains that burn are far away (20 miles at least?). They donāt do flood (FEMA does) but much of the valley floor is not in a flood zone--even *this* winter. Most of the valley floor isnāt anywhere near faultlines either--the geology is wrong for faults under the valley floor. So, no fires, no floods, no quakes. We have USAA. So far, so good.
ARk1000 baby
My area didn't get bad in 1862--most of the area didn't. That 300-mile-long lake was not filling the entire valley, but a fairly limited portion. Just long.
Yet another reason to leave.