Perhaps the most interesting part of the article:

  • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 hours ago

    That probably sounds good in your head. But you are only thinking of fires. What if they just pick the highest risk factor for every house and refuse to cover that. Then what would be the point of the insurance. And if you consider all the houses that are a high risk for something… fire, hurricane, flooding, high winds, tornadoes, earthquakes… you aren’t left with many houses.

    • fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 hours ago

      What a silly thing to say.

      Obviously, if one insurer refused to cover what ever thing, they would lose all their customers to other insurers who covered sensible risks.

      The point is, you can’t insure against risks that are too likely to occur.