insurance companies are businesses which have to make profitable decisions, not public charities. In a similar vein, neither should the federal government be. If people insist on living in vulnerable areas (especially those wealthy enough to live "anywhere"), they should either take the risk of "self-insuring" or pay a fair price based on the actuarial probability that their house will have to be replaced in a relatively short period of time.

Agree, but with an added clause.

After the Great War, there was pushback from the victorious countries who had borrowed heavily to do so, principally from the US. President Calvin Coolidge was quoted by Winston Churchill as asking, "They hired the money, didn't they?"(1)

I have the same reaction to the insurance companies who have established " a pattern of delays and foot-dragging" in paying out claims. (2)

Since the longer a float persists untapped, the more lucrative it is, the company has an incentive to foot-dragging.

Here is where the state has a legitimate function in compelling the timely fulfillment of a contract. A deal is a deal. Pay. The. Claim.

Whether or not to continue to write (and buy) policies, and at what price, is an entirely separate issue. If no insurance is available, either self-insure, or live elsewhere.(3)

-- sutton

(1) Coolidge was demonstrably wrong here, as insistence on payment of war reparations was a substantial cause of the European theater of WWII. But I like the quote anyway.

(2): In this case, State Farm: nytimes.com - State farm california insurance investigation

(3) another Berkshire link: Charlie M self-insured his home