A $10 billion cyclone and flood reinsurance pool was set up in 2022, in a bid to bring down home and business insurance premiums in northern Australia
The big question that really needs answering is: How do we move people away from areas that are disaster prone?"
The former shows why the latter is impossible. Quite the opposite of encouraging people to move away, it allows people and local authorities to be lackadaisical about climate enhanced risk.
This segues to another recent article
www.abc.net.au/news/2025-01-14/…/104813982
The air conditioner is going 24/7," she said. . “The last two years it’s been a hell of a lot hotter,” she said.
Yes, once again the former making it worse. Those that can’t afford AC (6-7 billion or so around the workd?) can just die ?
It’s seems that’s all we do, make it worse.
NaevaTheRat@vegantheoryclub.org 1 week ago
Leaving insurance privatised is insane to me. The whole of society hurts if people can’t rebuild their lives and we just let people screw people for as much as they can then drop them the moment is looks like turnabout might be coming. Ok.
Salvo@aussie.zone 1 week ago
Nationalisation probably isn’t the option for Insurance. Regulation would be a better option.
Nationalisation of Utilities, like Water, Power, Telco, Rail, Roads, etc does make sense, but Insurance, Banking, Media needs to be private (although government-funded competitors are great at keeping the industries honest).
We have the Transport Accident Commission in Victoria that covers medical for Car accidents, but will seek remuneration from Private Insurance company’s as necessary. They also make very disturbing and visceral traffic safety ads.
NaevaTheRat@vegantheoryclub.org 1 week ago
Why? That’s just an assertion. Mathematically I only offer you insurance if it is, on average, a bad deal for you. It’s just a casino for houses, the house always wins.
Private businesses aren’t charities, but everyone suffers if houses cannot be rebuilt, or people cannot replace the tools they need to flourish after a car accident or break in etc. We all bear the cost of this anyway since we all have to be insured which is (cost of covering this damage + profit). It is effectively a regressive tax for a scheme which doesn’t cover everyone equally.
When people aren’t covered it’s a disaster for everyone and it’s cruel to leave people in the lurch. The government sets the social conditions (property crime, availability of welfare etc), the environmental conditions (natural disasters, harms from pollution etc), and releases land to build on (risk profile). Community bodies such as government are the only bodies that make sense to run insurance for, and it motivates us not to e.g. release land that’ll flood and just say “lol sorry you poors who had to live there because we won’t densify”.
Please make your argument for privatisation.