A State Farm executive was fired after an undercover video recorded during a Tinder date appears to show him talking about rate hikes after the SoCal wildfires.
Probably fired for getting recorded rather than saying anything not openly discussed at HQ. And they’re kind of not even wrong.
We build housing in disaster prone areas and then get surprised when insurance costs an arm and a leg or just pulls out altogether. And when the risk profile can’t even support a super expensive policy we have the government take it all on like those flood zones in the South.
Insurance shouldn’t really be for profit (or at least shouldn’t profit from unspent payment funds), but some of these disaster zones are just going to become disaster zones again, especially as we keep fucking up the climate. People are bad at gauging risk, so insurance is often the only thing there to hit them with the cold hard truth about how likely they are to lose everything in the next X years and maybe make them realize it’s just not a good place to build new homes.
His comments appear to be more of a reflection on our current system of governance and allocation of resources than giving away the secrets of a greedy corporation. But at this point criticizing our system of governance is a punishable offense, so it tracks.
If expenses are higher for the thing you’re selling than regulation will allow you to charge for them, then of course you don’t sell the thing. Should we use for-profit institutions as our safety nets? No, but it is what we’ve got and the scenario is a lose-lose in our current system.
Probably fired for getting recorded rather than saying anything not openly discussed at HQ. And they’re kind of not even wrong.
We build housing in disaster prone areas and then get surprised when insurance costs an arm and a leg or just pulls out altogether. And when the risk profile can’t even support a super expensive policy we have the government take it all on like those flood zones in the South.
Insurance shouldn’t really be for profit (or at least shouldn’t profit from unspent payment funds), but some of these disaster zones are just going to become disaster zones again, especially as we keep fucking up the climate. People are bad at gauging risk, so insurance is often the only thing there to hit them with the cold hard truth about how likely they are to lose everything in the next X years and maybe make them realize it’s just not a good place to build new homes.
His comments appear to be more of a reflection on our current system of governance and allocation of resources than giving away the secrets of a greedy corporation. But at this point criticizing our system of governance is a punishable offense, so it tracks.
If expenses are higher for the thing you’re selling than regulation will allow you to charge for them, then of course you don’t sell the thing. Should we use for-profit institutions as our safety nets? No, but it is what we’ve got and the scenario is a lose-lose in our current system.