[godtoldmetodoit]

Agreed on this point, I don't want to be subsidizing insurance or paying for multi millionaires homes to be rebuilt.

I truly feel bad for the people who lost their homes, it's awful. But it shouldn't be the tax payer who picks up the tab. If insurance is so prohibitively expensive you can no longer afford to build there, then so be it - you can't afford to live there after all.

[nunez]

Are you subsidizing them, though? High-risk areas often require expensive insurance addendums or proof of self-insurance. We deal with this in Houston and our numerous pockets of 100yr floodplains.

[Analemma_]

California only recently dropped the twin requirements of "insurance cannot be priced according to future models" and "insurance premiums can only rise X% per year", the effect of which that everyone else definitely was subsidizing the people in wildfire zones.

[Clubber]

>But it shouldn't be the tax payer who picks up the tab.

Rebuilding is exactly what paying taxes are for. We've been giving too much of it to corporate interests, why not give some to the citizens? What are we, nodes of the Matrix, supplying the machine with labor for nothing but an illusion of a decent life?

[dixie_land]

Maybe we shouldn't be supplying the machine (paying taxes) at all

[matwood]

> paying for multi millionaires homes

Keep in mind that for many expensive homes, much of the expense is in the location, and not the home itself. It doesn't cost the market value of the house to rebuild it on the same spot. It's also not free, and in mass disasters it can be more because of shortages, but it's still less, often significantly so, than the market value.

[nnf]

The flip side can also be true, where the replacement cost of a home is higher than its market value. Always be sure to insure your home for at least the replacement cost.

[nothercastle]

That’s simply not true. In high col areas like this and especially on custom homes that were well built rebuilding is much more expensive than appraised market value for structures.

Part of that is easily attributable to depreciation of the structure but another large portion is the large increase in skilled labor costs in the last couple years.

[metabagel]

This strikes me as not understanding the limits of private insurance. There wouldn’t be earthquake insurance across much of California if the state didn’t provide it. Private insurance isn’t generally able to withstand large calamities which result in many thousands of high dollar claims in a short period of time.

[tptacek]

You can insure against a very expensive event that is very likely to happen; it's simply that the premiums for that insurance will be very, very high. If you're "insured" for a catastrophic event that is likely --- for instance, a home in Pacific Palisades of any sort --- and your premiums look reasonable and bearable, then the odds are you're not insured, you're subsidized.

[michaeljx]

Private insurance can and generally withstands large calamities (known as natcat losses) without government intervention via the utilisation of global reinsurance organizations. Especially for earthquake, a properly reinsured insurance can cover a large earthquake loss about once every 15-20years

[reshlo]

> There wouldn’t be earthquake insurance across much of California if the state didn’t provide it.

That’s fine. If it’s not possible to buy insurance for a particular house at a price that you can afford, don’t live in that house. The state’s other taxpayers shouldn’t be assuming your financial risk.

[WalterBright]

When the government regulates the premiums, there will be (inevitably) shortages of companies willing to provide the coverage.