> it's pretty clear that a purely market-based health system costs lives.

That was literally the take about insurance. And here we are, again.

> It's obvious to every socialist that this move was stupid

Is it? Or is this post hoc rationalization? I really dislike playing the “both sides” card, even for a moment, but it’s hard to deny that there are questionable takes on both ends.

I agree with you that not every regulation equates to socialism, and it’s ridiculous to claim it is. However, the narrative of “insurance companies bad” is incredibly prevalent among left-leaning perspectives, and any regulation around insurance premiums tends to be automatically celebrated as a clear victory.

Ironically (because it's a free market argument), it’s a not-uncommon argument that if insurance companies can’t provide their services for no more than some arbitrarily-decided amount annually, they’re being inefficient or greedy and should go bankrupt and let a new competitor take the market.

Pretty much, yeah: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

The real problem is the FIRE. The houses could be made fire-resistant, but making houses to be fire-resistant is going to be more expensive than managing the forests to reduce wildfires and storing more water. I don't believe that a tiny screen is going to make this huge difference you think it is. These fires are HOT and don't just catch houses on fire with little embers. They are hot enough to set wood and plastic on fire from a pretty good distance away. Green trees don't easily burn because of their high water content. Trees have evolved to survive fires as well.

And give many of Europe's house's a small rattle and they would fall down.

I'm in Christchurch, 6.2 Earthquake in 2011 and wooden framed houses dealt with it pretty good - they flex - lots of the houses survived and are still used.

Just about anything old and bricky was a deathtrap (fortunately many were unoccupied because condemned after nearby 2010 Earthquake).

While having above ground power lines

While having unmanaged accumulated flammable brush

While having an empty reservoir under repair

While having the public water source unable to maintain water pressure for multiple hydrant usage

While having too few fire fighters dispatched in the area anyway

While having houses made out of wood

is it an ignorant take when the houses not made out of wood with their own watersource were able to withstand 100mph wind gusts and firestorm? it really really makes everyone else look ignorant

Frankly, everyone has been warning about the risk for years. The fire started as a forest fire (whether it was arson or not), and was anticipated by insurance companies who dropped policies on thousands of people in the months leading up to this. The winds are a big problem of course, but if there were not so many acres of kindling around the city along with insufficient water reservoirs, then a fire like this could not spread as easily as it did. I will give you that the fire could have still happened and been bad either way, but insurance people who literally study this stuff for a living and have skin in the game knew it was likely to get out of control well in advance.