You have to have insurance if you want a mortgage so not having insurance is basically just a proxy for (mostly old) people who own their house outright.
I would carry a $50k deductible if I could. No insurer I've encountered would let me. I don't really care to insure against anything other than a total loss.
shaftway · 2026-06-30 22:00:00 UTC
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.
CobaltFire · 2026-06-30 22:11:10 UTC
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).
kbelder · 2026-06-30 22:55:51 UTC
The issue isn't the big one. The issue is a minor tremor that happens to crack a vital support beam, or cracks a pipe, and causes $25k of damage.
ternaryoperator · 2026-06-30 23:31:27 UTC
Alas, not. Most policies in California have a 15% deductible. That’s 15% of the insured value of your home. So for nearly all houses, a $25K bill is not covered. California policies are and have always been to cover catastrophic damage.
Jarwain · 2026-07-01 02:59:47 UTC
Wait I'm sorry but if the policies are to cover catastrophic damage, but if catastrophe actually strikes and the insurance company becomes insolvent, What's the actual point or purpose of insurance then?
georgemcbay · 2026-07-01 03:35:17 UTC
> Wait I'm sorry but if the policies are to cover catastrophic damage, but if catastrophe actually strikes and the insurance company becomes insolvent, What's the actual point or purpose of insurance then?
Making the insurance executives ultra-rich.
frollogaston · 2026-07-01 05:07:37 UTC
Hence the original question. I've always wondered the same thing.
ternaryoperator · 2026-07-01 05:36:25 UTC
[delayed]
Manuel_D · 2026-07-01 00:00:17 UTC
The most convincing argument I could make is that the government could step in and keep the insurance agencies solvent. Sort of a too-big-to-fail situation.
nradov · 2026-07-01 04:07:00 UTC
If you own an older house then the economically rational choice is to drop your insurance and put that money into seismic retrofits instead. Better to prevent earthquake damage in the first place rather than hoping that insurance will cover repairs. There is even financial assistance available in some cases.
It would be more useful to determine why insurance premiums are rising faster than almost every other homeowner expense. At the same time noting that insurance companies are making massive profits and squandering millions on executive salaries and advertising.
qsera · 2026-07-01 04:00:42 UTC
Everyone is one death away from losing everything anyway...
Comments
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...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard
I would carry a $50k deductible if I could. No insurer I've encountered would let me. I don't really care to insure against anything other than a total loss.
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.
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).
Making the insurance executives ultra-rich.
https://www.crmp.org/