my sadly hot (no pun intended) take is that insurance needs to be let free. price controls on insurance are doubly counterproductive - not only does it result in the companies leaving, it results in those who need the insurance losing their stuff when catastrophe inevitably hits.

it’s ok if insurance is expensive - let it result in the insured goods or services having a serious price adjustment.

rather than price controls a slightly better solution would be just to nationalize insurance and force everyone to use it, but even that is not really a solution since highly correlated events are the antithesis of insurance.

One thing I am mostly against is nationalized property/casualty insurance. California seems to have taken every opportunity to not properly price risk. My worry is that while extreme, their logic and priorities do not feel unique for government decision making. The last thing I'd want to do is expand it.

When you distort risk pricing, you distort the market, and if you do it hard enough for long enough, you are basically pulling back the slingshot.

While this also applies to mutual insurers, my philosophy is being serious about solvency is the best way to know if you are properly underwriting and pricing. I feel like the government operates too much knowing that they can backstop it either themselves or by imposing an assessment on the market.

You are right that the really big disasters are very correlated events. While not a silver bullet, reinsurance and other risk transfer stuff can help smooth those kind of events out. The good-ish thing with those risks is that while they are uncertain, they are sort of identifiable, known unknowns in Rumsfeld parlance.

I agree with that sentiment, the thing that always seems crazy to me is that California's housing pricing in the face of all these things, but perhaps it's sort of pick your poison. Like I don't want to harp on it, but the only implicit or explicit thing everyone appears to agree on given the decisions that have been made is protecting housing prices above all else. But don't expose people to the ramifications of the housing appreciation (Looking at you, Prop 13).

This is not an insurance problem, or a market problem, or an MBA econ problem.

It's a "Do we want cultural extinction or a relatively comfortable and habitable planet?" problem, which is not quite the same thing.

No amount of faith-based "We will adapt!" is going to make an impression until evidence appears that we are actually adapting in real, tangible ways.

Clearly, objectively, and empirically we are not. We are doing the opposite - pretending to ourselves the problem is going to be solved by continuing with the same mistakes which caused it.

Agreed. The government should ensure fair prices by ensuring healthy competition. Maybe have a (non-subsidized) public option. The government should also compensate for the power disparity by requiring policies to have reasonable coverage and making sure insurance companies actually honor them when the times comes. But directly dictating a maximum price isn’t going to go well.

> it’s ok if insurance is expensive - let it result in the insured goods or services having a serious price adjustment.

Long term, sure. In the short term, the rapid rise of housing prices combined with the increased rates and severity of disasters means the extra monthly cost would be enough to price a number of people out of homes they purchased when rates were much lower. While it's easy to say, "They should just move," that has huge transaction costs. Aside from the obvious things, which are already substantial, consider the cost of paying off a mortgage taken out a few years ago and acquiring a new mortgage at current interest rates. That can cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars (which shows up as now only being able to afford a much worse house, probably in a much worse location, if you can continue to afford to own at all), and you are basically gifting that money to the bank by paying off your loan early.

You can understand why such people would be willing to take a chance on not having insurance rather than incur a definite loss, and why it might be tempting to try to come up with some other solution than just unleashing the unrelenting might of the free market on them.

Totally agree, though there should still be insurance commisions and controls to ensure that any company selling policies in a given area is solvent enough to pay out. Otherwise you'll have fly-by-night insurance companies selling sham policies for cheap then folding up shop during the next natural disaster saying "oopsies guess it's the state's responsibility now".

I think this is a pretty common and au courant take right now.