Government ≠ Insurer of Last Resort

Send us a text

The argument is this: I believe that within a decade or so, the losses from disasters will be so expense that irrespective of the damage, there will no longer be any government assistance for those who are uninsured. Residents will simply have to go bankrupt and walk away. Were need a solution to stop that outcome.

We cannot order insurance companies to make policies cheaper, they’d go bankrupt. We cannot order residents to pay premiums they cannot afford, they’d go bankrupt. We cannot order the government to pay for disaster losses, they’re going bankrupt.

Insurance is best viewed as an investment, not an expense. We protect that which we deem valuable, from ourselves through medical, our loved ones through life, our cars through automobile, our stupidity through personal umbrellas and our domiciles and contents through house insurance. Hence, it is an investment to hedge against exogenous shocks that are largely outside our control, to cover the recovery costs post event. A simple idea that suffers from two main problems - personal responsibility and coverage from the taxpayer.
These are tough conversations we're not having, how do we as a society navigate this reality?
Why are we assuming the government will always be able to fund this expense?

Support the show

www.insidemycanoehead.ca