Insurance: Weather, Fire, Madness
Lots of cost. Little coverage. A scam? Or a bigger problem?
A few days ago, Missouri Senator Josh Hawley led a hearing to expose problems with the property insurance industry (including homeowner’s insurance). While his focus was on the wrongdoing of insurance companies, one has to wonder if there might be more to the story.
Senator Hawley is right. Property insurance is a mess right now. It’s expensive and the coverage is limited. People are often caught without adequate coverage after paying for a policy for a long time. It is also true that insurance companies try to limit exposure and that companies try to get homeowners to accept less than what is covered in their policy.
Just as concerning, policies are long and difficult for the average person to understand. Insurance sales people are compensated based on the number of policies they sell, so there is no incentive to explain the policy carefully. As a result, many people are purchasing policies that aren’t doing much to protect them. Also, people are generally notified about changes to their policy in long legalese. Many people don’t read the policy changes (or don’t understand the bottom line) and blindly continue paying, thinking they have the same coverage as when they purchased the insurance.
On the other side, insurance is a business and only works if a company receives more money from policyholders than it pays out. In recent years, it has become more difficult to predict catastrophic events, especially weather and fire events. Some of the fire events are so abnormal that people openly suggest that they are intentionally set (or facilitated by equipment) to allow developers to swoop in and take large blocks of land for pennies on the dollar. It is interesting that the land that burned recently in Maui and Southern California is extremely valuable.
It is also interesting to consider the strange, unpredictable weather that seems to be commonplace now. One has to wonder if the weather modification, that has been going on since the 1940s, has finally caught up with us and we are seeing wild out of control swings that are beyond what the insurance models can predict. If this is the case, it would explain the push for reduction in coverage and compensation.
Obviously, we need to stop unethical behavior whether it is policyholders trying to claim repairs that are not related to a storm or fire or insurance companies that owe money but are trying to keep from paying it. Then we need to focus on things that are making things unpredictable. If the issue is weather modification, we need to stop it. If we are having issues with directed energy weapons or smart meters or other equipment, it is time to keep the weapons from being used and/or use different equipment that is not a fire hazard.
For those of you that want more detail on what South Dakota is doing to address weather modification, reach out to Representative Bobbi Andera.
Good well balanced questions to ask. A few other factors to include are decreasing competition among all insurers (except auto). This will lead to less efficiency in claims and underwriting. Instead of sharpening pencils, insurers will just charge more money and will not lose customers.
Next is the massive inflation we had has driven replacement costs exponentially. A house built in 2000 probably costs triple these days to replace. That skews projections by the insurers heavily.
South Dakota Voices Response: Bryce, thank you for joining us. This is a copy of a comment we made to Mr. Pay. Perhaps you could provide some links with data that support your viewpoints. We have heard a lot of discussion from the "credentialed class", but haven't seen any hard data that supports this viewpoint. We worry it is like the definitive "data" on Alzheimers that forced Dr. Tessier-Lavigne to step down as President of Stanford University. If you haven't worked in the university world, its a real issue right now. Lots of outcome based research chasing those grant dollars. And lots of pay to publish. Check out of the billion plus that went to peer reviewers of medical content in a couple of years during the Covid Period. https://publichealthpolicyjournal.com/pharma-paid-1-06-billion-to-reviewers-at-top-medical-journals/ https://www.npr.org/2023/07/19/1188828810/stanford-university-president-resigns (actually much worse that portrayed here, but Stanford makes money off the medical services business and begged not to have their reputation tarnished).
Email comment from BJ: "Pathetic that there was no mention of climate change. Did a high schooler write this?"