Hacker News Reader

Comment by rewgs | Hacker News Reader

> 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?

They don't, but they have the courtesy of giving myself and thousands of others a proper heads up. Perhaps any heads up? They quite literally just dropped me, no email, no letter, no nothing. This type of thing should be given 3 months minimum.

> 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?

Alright, you just lost me, not even bothering to read the rest of your post. To answer your utterly moronic question: because they aren't in the business of insurance. I award you no points, and may god have mercy on your soul.

View on HN

>They don't, but they have the courtesy of giving myself and thousands of others a proper heads up. Perhaps any heads up? They quite literally just dropped me, no email, no letter, no nothing. This type of thing should be given 3 months minimum.

No way that happened, the state would not allow it.

https://ktla.com/news/california/state-farm-to-non-renew-720...

>It’s important to note that nonrenewal is not canceling. Customers affected by the decision will retain coverage until their current contract is up. The company said those impacted will be notified between July 3 and Aug. 20.

I can assure you that I received nothing of the sort. In fact, I only found out because I called about transferring my policy to a new house. And yes, I read all email/snail mail sent by them. I was given zero heads up.

> To answer your utterly moronic question

I don’t think it was moronic at all; the point is to get to the bottom of what assumptions and axioms you’re using. What is the moral framework according to which you claim State Farm has wronged you. Only then can we judge whether your claim is in fact correct.

> because they aren't in the business of insurance

So, if I understand your implicit argument correctly, it seems to be that anyone who sells a product be forced to sell it to anyone, no matter how costly it is to them.

There’s no McDonalds in Barrow, Alaska, presumably because running a McDonalds there would be prohibitively expensive. Is that immoral? Should they have an obligation to open a store there?

> So, if I understand your implicit argument correctly, it seems to be that anyone who sells a product be forced to sell it to anyone, no matter how costly it is to them.

That is clearly, clearly not my argument, but I have a feeling that you're one of those bad faith "and yet you participate in society, curious!" guys, so I'm done here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com