11 pointsby crookedroad444 hours ago2 comments
  • shaftway39 minutes ago
    I'm insured, but I'm considering dropping insurance for the most likely disaster: earthquakes.

    I'm in CA, and even though I'm not on top of an active fault, I'm close enough to be impacted. When the big one gets here, if it's big enough to affect me, then everyone else will be affected. I don't have any reason to expect them to stay solvent if a third of the CA population files for benefits.

    I've thought about taking the money I pay for earthquake insurance premiums, and instead putting it on polymarket, betting that an earthquake will happen. If it doesn't, then I'm no worse off than I was paying for insurance. If it does, then polymarket just distributes my "winnings".

    Convince me to keep my insurance.

    • CobaltFire28 minutes ago
      I won't try because I did something similar. If it happens I can guarantee that the insurance companies won't be solvent.

      Instead we are focused on investing our money as a form of self-insurance.

      It's kind of like life insurance; term makes sense but whole life doesn't (vs investing the premiums).

      As far as polymarket: I can't say there. I've never used it (though I know what it is).

  • AFF87an hour ago
    >The homeowners most exposed to climate-driven disasters are, in many cases, the same ones least likely to have insurance when those disasters arrive.

    I wondered whether this is a signal that the insurers don't want to insure for those risks and unsurprisingly there is a Wikipedia page for it! [1]

    [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_and_insurance_i...