Let's focus especially on insurance for property like homes and businesses. This is an area where I feel may need some sort of government intervention, which isn't a common thing for me to say. They seem to not want to insure areas like the Gulf Coast or California. If they will at all, they will do so at exorbitant costs. The rate increases are egregious. This impacts people's quality of life possibly even more than all of the other inflation.

Should anything be done about the insurance industry?

Sound advice!

Try getting insurance on a farm/ranch!!!

Liberty Mutual just informed us they didn't want any policies for over $500,000…..

Waffledynamics said:

---

Let's focus especially on insurance for property like homes and businesses. This is an area where I feel may need some sort of government intervention, which isn't a common thing for me to say. They seem to not want to insure areas like the Gulf Coast or California. If they will at all, they will do so at exorbitant costs. The rate increases are egregious. This impacts people's quality of life possibly even more than all of the other inflation.

Should anything be done about the insurance industry?

---

You just learn to live with it.

Where I live, home insurance is very expensive because we are so far from town. If your house catches fire, it will be pretty much burned to the ground by the time the fire department can arrive. So nobody has insurance. We don't suffer from some idea that we are entitled to have insurance.

I think it's an inevitable when a 3rd party payer is involved. Hospitals, body shops, builders are going to milk all they can.

Kraft Punk said:

---

Lmao

Too much govt is what got us here.....


Eventually the bubble will burst, property values will
drop, & insurance will follow suit....


In the mean time try to keep your head above water bc a lot of people are going to drown

---

I am doubtful about property values over a broad spectrum ever going down.

Insurance companies are state regulated. Not federal.

They can choose which states in which they choose to do so. It is what it is.

OP: I'm pro market, but only when it helps me

The market is.

Waffledynamics said:

---

Let's focus especially on insurance for property like homes and businesses. This is an area where I feel may need some sort of government intervention, which isn't a common thing for me to say. They seem to not want to insure areas like the Gulf Coast or California. If they will at all, they will do so at exorbitant costs. The rate increases are egregious. This impacts people's quality of life possibly even more than all of the other inflation.

Should anything be done about the insurance industry?

---

Just shut up, press on till you can self insure.

Just get rid of the legal requirement to carry insurance.

It'll be better overall.

I had an electrician come take a look at the electrical system of an RV park I was going to make an offer on. He had owned one himself. In the course of our discussion, he mentioned he owned several rent houses, 17 or 19 as I recall. He had not had insurance on them for 11 years (so no mortgage company was involved). He told me with ever increasing premiums, he could lose one property every other year and be in the same position had he kept them insured. After 11 years, he was way ahead of the game.

Of course, you wouldn't want to take that sort of risk on a home or on certain properties.

Technically he has insurance. He's self insured. But he also has economies of scale in his favor.

19 properties, could easily be looking at 100,000 a year in premiums.

This is a terrible take OP. Clearly not a fiscally conservative stance by any means….

We need less government and the market will take care of itself for insurance.

Would you personally insure properties on the gulf coast for the same premiums as in other areas?

jja79 said:

---

Would you personally insure properties on the gulf coast for the same premiums as in other areas?

---

Or well out in the country where it would take, at a minimum, 30 minutes for the fire department to arrive and when they did, they would be limited by how much water they were ccarrying?

According to one article I read a few years ago, the average home owner out in the country would be better off to put their money into installing a sprinkler system than on buying insurance for their house.

eric76 said:

---

jja79 said:

---

Would you personally insure properties on the gulf coast for the same premiums as in other areas?

---

Or well out in the country where it would take, at a minimum, 30 minutes for the fire department to arrive and when they did, they would be limited by how much water they were ccarrying?

According to one article I read a few years ago, the average home owner out in the country would be better off to put their money into installing a sprinkler system than on buying insurance for their house.

---

When I lived in the country, I talked to a few folks at the VFD and they told me that their job was not to save the house but to stop it from spreading....

eric76 said:

---

Waffledynamics said:

---

Let's focus especially on insurance for property like homes and businesses. This is an area where I feel may need some sort of government intervention, which isn't a common thing for me to say. They seem to not want to insure areas like the Gulf Coast or California. If they will at all, they will do so at exorbitant costs. The rate increases are egregious. This impacts people's quality of life possibly even more than all of the other inflation.

Should anything be done about the insurance industry?

---

You just learn to live with it.

Where I live, home insurance is very expensive because we are so far from town. If your house catches fire, it will be pretty much burned to the ground by the time the fire department can arrive. So nobody has insurance. We don't suffer from some idea that we are entitled to have insurance.

---

If someone has a mortgage they are required to have insurance

Be disciplined to shop rates every chance you get. I recently received my renewal from Progressive. It was $3,900 for 6 months of insurance on 3 vehicles (only 2 drivers with clean records). I called an agent with Farmers and now I pay $2,100 and we agreed to increase the limits of coverage over what I was paying.

If Farmers goes up at subsequent renewals, I'll shop around until I either find someone cheaper or I can justify the increased premium.

I moved from Houston area to Phoenix area last year and the sigbifixant decrease in insurance cost was a bonus. Just got my renewal Tuesday and it went down again.

bmks270 said:

---

Just get rid of the legal requirement to carry insurance.

It'll be better overall.

---

Tough to do when people dont really own their houses or cars-- in most cases they are owned by a lender.
so people have to carry full coverage.

Another example where debt is slavery.

jja79 said:

---

I moved from Houston area to Phoenix area last year and the sigbifixant decrease in insurance cost was a bonus. Just got my renewal Tuesday and it went down again.

---

I wouldn't touch that area with it VERY precarious water situation. That and Vegas are water disasters waiting to happen

Waffledynamics said:

---

Let's focus especially on insurance for property like homes and businesses. This is an area where I feel may need some sort of government intervention, which isn't a common thing for me to say. They seem to not want to insure areas like the Gulf Coast or California. If they will at all, they will do so at exorbitant costs. The rate increases are egregious. This impacts people's quality of life possibly even more than all of the other inflation.

Should anything be done about the insurance industry?

---

If you read what you wrote….the answer is clearly no.

How involved does the govt have to be in an insurance segment before it becomes just another tax with little flexibility and inflexible options for people to shop and decide what level of risk they want to take and can afford. Looking at some of you spineless supremet court justices!

Value of my house more than doubled in the last 5 years but the premium for equivalent coverage didn't double. There was sticker shock for sure but not 1 to 1. That is where the risk pool comes in. You want to have a 2nd house on Padre Island or somewhere else in hurricane alley....I don't want to subsidize your insurance premiums through socialized govt. taxes under the guise of insurance.

ttu_85 said:

---

bmks270 said:

---

Just get rid of the legal requirement to carry insurance.

It'll be better overall.

---

Tough to do when people dont really own their houses or cars-- in most cases they are owned by a lender.
so people have to carry full coverage.

Another example where debt is slavery.

---

In Texas, it's not a requirement of law to have homeowners instance. That's a condition of the market.

Government contributes to the problem with certain regulations that require the product to be purchased and to certain standards. This results in a race to conform to that bottom, and the government standards essentially become an unspoken form of collusion, which is something the law also considers a trust. The price fixing is gone by all the insurance companies having basically the same costs. They also have the same government dictated coverage requirements. The result is what is effectively a price fixing trust within a very narrow range, set by the extremely government limited market conditions.

UAS Ag said:

---

eric76 said:

---

jja79 said:

---

Would you personally insure properties on the gulf coast for the same premiums as in other areas?

---

Or well out in the country where it would take, at a minimum, 30 minutes for the fire department to arrive and when they did, they would be limited by how much water they were ccarrying?

According to one article I read a few years ago, the average home owner out in the country would be better off to put their money into installing a sprinkler system than on buying insurance for their house.

---

When I lived in the country, I talked to a few folks at the VFD and they told me that their job was not to save the house but to stop it from spreading....

---

That's been the goal of fighting fires since the beginning of time. Take the Great Fire of London in 1666 for example. Their plan, which they failed to execute for political reasons, was to tear down nearby structures to stop the spread of the fire. When they didn't tear down the structures on purpose, those caught fire, too.