If coverage was offered, who should be the one subsidizing it? Private companies? No way, they never would. Government? That's just a regressive policy funneling money to a relative well-off (homeowners) group of people.
If coverage was offered, who should be the one subsidizing it? Private companies? No way, they never would. Government? That's just a regressive policy funneling money to a relative well-off (homeowners) group of people.
Perhaps this was lost, but areas where insurance companies are deeming too risky to live is growing given climate change is real and weather patterns are shifting - sometimes drastically - to create more powerful storms.
This is just going to continue to happen in a game of Russian Roulette.
Also in general I don’t believe you can get a mortgage without home insurance? So people buying these properties would have to come in cash.
I think insurance companies cover customers because the customers pay for the insurance.
You're saying that because profits for insurance companies aren't at the level the insurance companies want, that they can say - because it's illegal to own an uninsured home, where people can and can not live?
That seems like an overreach of power of a private company.