This is a serious quandary for the 'right of wing' here.. No joke.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 15, 2012 7:24 PM GMT
    Ok.. lets hear your suggestions on how to handle this real life scenario:

    This is about everything (ideology) you (i.e. the GOP uses as its campaign slogans) hold dear yet it impacts everyone in this state GOP, DEM, IND or otherwise.

    Home ownership is part of the GOP ideology. (dont pull that stuff about mortgages and whatnot. This has NOTHING to do with that)

    Reduced restrictions, business friendly environment, free market support and encouragement and financial. That's what this includes.


    Issue: Despite a business-friendly Legislature, looser rate guidelines and the sixth straight hurricane season with no major storms hitting the state, private insurers are still shedding Florida policies instead of flocking here. State Farm has gone from 580,000 policies last January to 514,000 in September, according to state figures. Call it Rick's Paradox: The more that REP Gov. Scott and other state GOP leaders talk about shrinking or eliminating Citizens Property Insurance, the bigger the state-run insurer gets.
    Two years ago, Citizens had a little over 1 million policies. When Scott took office last January, Citizens had 1.23 million policies. As of Dec. 31, the number was up to 1,472,391 policies.
    And Citizens projects it will have 1.65 million policies by year's end, according to its 2012 budget, more than the four biggest private insurers combined.

    Homeowners Insurance is REQUIRED by ALL mortgage holders in this country, regardless of when a home is/was purchased.
    Many can no longer afford that insurance. To include 'GOP' Grandma and Grandpa's home bought 30 yrs ago. (which means they are going to be forced to walk away from it)
    If "private" insurers have been and continue to leave the state, (as most have) and the 'state run" company of last resort is inflating replacement costs ( yes you read that correctly) to inflate their revenues, what would your idea be to 'fix' this problem?

    Remember: Freedom to choose, freedom to live where you want, and the Mississippi river basin floods massively more often (as an example for you to think about) and Texas, California, New Jersey North Carolina. (there's a specific reason I listed those states btw) Think hard.

    Lets hear your remedies. Anyone can post but I would like to hear from our more 'esteemed' conservative members. And by NO means is this a baiting thread. This is for straight forward discussion and sharing of ideas as this is a VERY real issue
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 15, 2012 7:31 PM GMT
    How is this anything other than bait for ANOTHER tedious and predictable squabble?

    Your earth energy (and possibly wood) is out of balance.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 15, 2012 7:33 PM GMT
    Lostboy saidHow is this anything other than bait for ANOTHER tedious and predictable squabble?

    Your earth energy (and possibly wood) is out of balance.
    Because the GOP led house senate and governor are in a quandary as well as every citizen in this state and it will spread to other states (its doing it as we speak.) Louisiana is next!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 15, 2012 8:10 PM GMT
    yes, but what do you possibly hope to gain from this thread? People like SouthBeach (if the curator of that particular art project is still posting under that account) and all its sock puppets will say a very predicable set of things and others will disagree. Nothing will change....

    Is this motivated by anger or just a rather hopeless emotional churning?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 15, 2012 8:38 PM GMT
    lol TropicalMark, it's like smoking. The gov't wants you to quit but they are very much addicted to the cigarette tax revenue from it.

    The trouble here, I think, is that if private insurers are leaving and the gov't folds Citizen's what will homeowners do?

    -Doug
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 15, 2012 8:43 PM GMT
    If you're actually interested in the answer - this situation was previously predicted because of regulations and public competition that underpriced insurance -

    http://reason.com/blog/2009/11/04/the-public-option-is-displacin
    http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1919916,00.html

    The solution is to deregulate insurance premiums entirely and stop the subsidies to wealthy beach front and flood zone real estate owners. As a result of the subsidies, people are building bigger and closer to the waterfront. It will mean that the cost of owning a home will be a lot more costly but given the previous costs and anticipated flood zones, for good reason.

    More here:
    http://reason.com/blog/2007/02/21/we-all-need-to-pray-to-the-hur

    Since neither the state's catastrophe fund nor the state-chartered insurance company has anywhere near enough money on hand to pay the claims they may now be required to pay after a major hurricane, the measure is considered a gamble, even by proponents.

    "We all need to pray to the hurricane gods," said state Sen. Steven Geller, who represents this beachfront condo city and negotiated a portion of the bill. "Yes, we're taking a risk. But what were our options?"

    Critics have decried the measure as irresponsible. Under the legislation, in the event of a major hurricane, the state will pay claims by taxing home, automobile and some other types of insurance policies sold in the state. That makes it especially unfair, critics argue, to inland and upstate Floridians, who could be asked to help pay to help bailout riskier coastal areas in South Florida.

    "If I wanted to gamble -- personally, I don't even buy lottery tickets -- and I'm pulling money out of my own pocket, that's one thing. But taking money out of someone else's pocket with the force of law is just irresponsible," said state Rep. Don Brown, the chairman of the insurance committee, who cast one of only two votes in the Florida House against the measure. "It's the most irresponsible measure that I ever was asked to vote on."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 15, 2012 8:51 PM GMT
    Hmmm TropicalMark has said that Citizen's has been raising replacement costs, not lowering them.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 15, 2012 9:02 PM GMT
    meninlove said Hmmm TropicalMark has said that Citizen's has been raising replacement costs, not lowering them.


    Not by nearly enough given that reserves are considerably below expected losses.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 15, 2012 9:05 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    meninlove said Hmmm TropicalMark has said that Citizen's has been raising replacement costs, not lowering them.


    Not by nearly enough given that reserves are considerably below expected losses.



    ...hmmm...I wonder why reserves are so low. Has the money been diverted to other spending? This is an annoying habit of all gov'ts, and businesses.

    It seems to me that if the rates were high enough the competition would return.

    TropicalMark, why is the competition leaving?




  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 15, 2012 9:32 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    riddler78 said
    meninlove said Hmmm TropicalMark has said that Citizen's has been raising replacement costs, not lowering them.


    Not by nearly enough given that reserves are considerably below expected losses.



    ...hmmm...I wonder why reserves are so low. Has the money been diverted to other spending? This is an annoying habit of all gov'ts, and businesses.

    It seems to me that if the rates were high enough the competition would return.

    TropicalMark, why is the competition leaving?






    They started at a much lower point - government competition pushed more people onto the "public option" and because insurance rates are regulated, they were unable to increase prices fast enough. As a result, insurers chose to leave rather than be exposed to catastrophic losses.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 15, 2012 9:45 PM GMT

    "They started at a much lower point - government competition pushed more people onto the "public option" and because insurance rates are regulated, they were unable to increase prices fast enough. As a result, insurers chose to leave rather than be exposed to catastrophic losses."

    OK I'm trying to decipher this.

    Citizen's started at a much lower point than the private insurers, so people went for the cheap deal (rather than pushed).

    Regulations forced private insurers to keep their rates down as well, but obviously not as low as Citizen's.

    Now are you also saying that those regulations on the private sector also applied to Citizen's, making them keep their rates down as well?

    What's interesting to me is this: our PRIVATE home insurance rates went up because of claims in the southern US. We're in Canada. This tells me that private insurance already does what that gov't is doing, making others pay to cover claims made by someone else.

    (quoting from the article), " Critics have decried the measure as irresponsible. Under the legislation, in the event of a major hurricane, the state will pay claims by taxing home, automobile and some other types of insurance policies sold in the state. That makes it especially unfair, critics argue, to inland and upstate Floridians, who could be asked to help pay to help bailout riskier coastal areas in South Florida."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 15, 2012 10:37 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    meninlove said Hmmm TropicalMark has said that Citizen's has been raising replacement costs, not lowering them.


    Not by nearly enough given that reserves are considerably below expected losses.
    Riddler..... There is a specific account that blows that right out of the water.. and its on MY own insurance policy.
    Said individual's home is 'valued' at 30, 000. Said home, to replace it by a contractor estimate (proposal) is 78,000. Citizens insurance uses a 'computer software program' to 'value' replacement costs at 163,000.

    My own home is "valued' at 147,000 to completely replace it would be about that. Citizens 'values' replacement cost to be 286,000.

    Sorry.. but that is not 'undervalued' "nearly enough" is it? Neither are these homes like millions of others Mcmansions on the water.. The problem with those is that those (replacements) are being UNDERWRITTEN by the 'rest of us policy holders".
    Now, up until last September citizens allowed for a 'third party' appraisal that could challenge the replacement appraisal.
    Guess who ended that? Where's the problem here? Oh and 'expected losses'?

    Citizens has been told by the population to bring its exorbitant legal costs down but, they refuse to stop subsidizing the "law" industry.

    I can see the problems.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 15, 2012 10:40 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    riddler78 said
    meninlove said Hmmm TropicalMark has said that Citizen's has been raising replacement costs, not lowering them.


    Not by nearly enough given that reserves are considerably below expected losses.



    ...hmmm...I wonder why reserves are so low. Has the money been diverted to other spending? This is an annoying habit of all gov'ts, and businesses.

    It seems to me that if the rates were high enough the competition would return.

    TropicalMark, why is the competition leaving?




    Simple. the competition is not allowed free reign in their rates. And even the Governor saw the raping being garnered. 400 % increases?
    For riddler.
    300 to 400 % increase on a 3000 annual premium? What do you think would happen? (thats MY premium NOW btw) Try that in any state to include canada..
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 15, 2012 10:45 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    meninlove said
    riddler78 said
    meninlove said Hmmm TropicalMark has said that Citizen's has been raising replacement costs, not lowering them.


    Not by nearly enough given that reserves are considerably below expected losses.



    ...hmmm...I wonder why reserves are so low. Has the money been diverted to other spending? This is an annoying habit of all gov'ts, and businesses.

    It seems to me that if the rates were high enough the competition would return.

    TropicalMark, why is the competition leaving?






    They started at a much lower point - government competition pushed more people onto the "public option" and because insurance rates are regulated, they were unable to increase prices fast enough. As a result, insurers chose to leave rather than be exposed to catastrophic losses.
    That is also INCORRECT. My insurer sent me a notice of cancellation "due to risk reduction".

    It was the PRIVATE insurers who dumped us all into the government option.

    Now I asked you to come up with solutions to this mess.. But you havent asked very detailed questions nor did you research anything. If you are unaware of the price ANYONE/EVERYONE pays here for insurance and when it skyrocketed, it would be prudent to research those first.
    Oh and just for clarification, Citizens has NEVER been 'cheaper" than the private insurers. It was designed as a "last resort" but when the private companies started to dump millions of policies because of "risk reduction" the state was forced to keep citizens 'competitive' lest they be lynched in office.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 16, 2012 3:22 AM GMT
    TropicalMark said
    riddler78 said
    meninlove said
    riddler78 said
    meninlove said Hmmm TropicalMark has said that Citizen's has been raising replacement costs, not lowering them.


    Not by nearly enough given that reserves are considerably below expected losses.



    ...hmmm...I wonder why reserves are so low. Has the money been diverted to other spending? This is an annoying habit of all gov'ts, and businesses.

    It seems to me that if the rates were high enough the competition would return.

    TropicalMark, why is the competition leaving?






    They started at a much lower point - government competition pushed more people onto the "public option" and because insurance rates are regulated, they were unable to increase prices fast enough. As a result, insurers chose to leave rather than be exposed to catastrophic losses.
    That is also INCORRECT. My insurer sent me a notice of cancellation "due to risk reduction".

    It was the PRIVATE insurers who dumped us all into the government option.

    Now I asked you to come up with solutions to this mess.. But you havent asked very detailed questions nor did you research anything. If you are unaware of the price ANYONE/EVERYONE pays here for insurance and when it skyrocketed, it would be prudent to research those first.
    Oh and just for clarification, Citizens has NEVER been 'cheaper" than the private insurers. It was designed as a "last resort" but when the private companies started to dump millions of policies because of "risk reduction" the state was forced to keep citizens 'competitive' lest they be lynched in office.


    You've acknowledged that the state has capped rates. Given the option to either insure or leave, they chose to leave - how is this so difficult for you to understand?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 16, 2012 4:58 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    TropicalMark said
    riddler78 said
    meninlove said
    riddler78 said
    meninlove said Hmmm TropicalMark has said that Citizen's has been raising replacement costs, not lowering them.


    Not by nearly enough given that reserves are considerably below expected losses.



    ...hmmm...I wonder why reserves are so low. Has the money been diverted to other spending? This is an annoying habit of all gov'ts, and businesses.

    It seems to me that if the rates were high enough the competition would return.

    TropicalMark, why is the competition leaving?






    They started at a much lower point - government competition pushed more people onto the "public option" and because insurance rates are regulated, they were unable to increase prices fast enough. As a result, insurers chose to leave rather than be exposed to catastrophic losses.
    That is also INCORRECT. My insurer sent me a notice of cancellation "due to risk reduction".

    It was the PRIVATE insurers who dumped us all into the government option.

    Now I asked you to come up with solutions to this mess.. But you havent asked very detailed questions nor did you research anything. If you are unaware of the price ANYONE/EVERYONE pays here for insurance and when it skyrocketed, it would be prudent to research those first.
    Oh and just for clarification, Citizens has NEVER been 'cheaper" than the private insurers. It was designed as a "last resort" but when the private companies started to dump millions of policies because of "risk reduction" the state was forced to keep citizens 'competitive' lest they be lynched in office.


    You've acknowledged that the state has capped rates. Given the option to either insure or leave, they chose to leave - how is this so difficult for you to understand?
    Yes I did.. if there were no caps.. then how do you justify 400 % increases? Remeber what I told you about the ACTUAL replacement costs.. not the 'contrived' ones.. you havent even touched that have you?
    Thats not how 'capitalism' works. When you price yourself into oblivion and right out of business then what is the point? Ah......... to take as much as you can before you're booted out?

    Now that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever as far as a business model is concerned. Oh and WHO mandated insurance?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 16, 2012 5:24 AM GMT
    TropicalMark saidYes I did.. if there were no caps.. then how do you justify 400 % increases? Remeber what I told you about the ACTUAL replacement costs.. not the 'contrived' ones.. you havent even touched that have you?
    Thats not how 'capitalism' works. When you price yourself into oblivion and right out of business then what is the point? Ah......... to take as much as you can before you're booted out?

    Now that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever as far as a business model is concerned. Oh and WHO mandated insurance?


    Who did you say is inflating the replacement costs? The state owned insurer? Ah. And your claim is that this is not how capitalism works?

    You're right - it's not. Because it isn't capitalism. The key problem is that for years rates were too low and capped because of regulatory restrictions - and now to catch up, yes you are seeing some really high increases in rates particularly as homes have been built closer and closer to shore.

    Insurance however is cyclical - ignoring for a moment regulations. What always happens is that rates harden, insurers then attract more capital and they get more competitive driving down rates. What happens when you restrict rates from rising so that insurers have the opportunity to recapitalize and get better returns is that insurers just choose to leave or don't write new policies. This is what is happening.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 16, 2012 5:34 AM GMT


    "Insurance however is cyclical - ignoring for a moment regulations. What always happens is that rates harden, insurers then attract more capital and they get more competitive driving down rates. What happens when you restrict rates from rising so that insurers have the opportunity to recapitalize and get better returns is that insurers just choose to leave or don't write new policies. This is what is happening."

    hmmm, except that in this case gov't is behaving exactly like a business that's able to raise rates; they're doing so, at a vastly inflated rate as Tropical's numbers show from his insurance policy.

    Do you think that private insurance would return only making small increases? I think their increases would match the gov't ones, at least. So stuck between a rock and a hard place in the US economy, what choice would a homeowner make? Probably the cheaper alternative, unless the private insurer could come up with something innovative, bundling services, adding extras etc.



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 16, 2012 5:37 AM GMT
    riddler78 said

    Insurance however is cyclical - ignoring for a moment regulations. What always happens is that rates harden, insurers then attract more capital and they get more competitive driving down rates. What happens when you restrict rates from rising so that insurers have the opportunity to recapitalize and get better returns is that insurers just choose to leave or don't write new policies. This is what is happening.
    Sorry kiddo But Ive been paying Insurance for many years before you were born.. It isnt "cyclic" It goes UP and has NEVER gone down in well over the 37 yrs Ive been payin it.
    icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 16, 2012 5:41 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    TropicalMark saidYes I did.. if there were no caps.. then how do you justify 400 % increases? Remeber what I told you about the ACTUAL replacement costs.. not the 'contrived' ones.. you havent even touched that have you?
    Thats not how 'capitalism' works. When you price yourself into oblivion and right out of business then what is the point? Ah......... to take as much as you can before you're booted out?

    Now that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever as far as a business model is concerned. Oh and WHO mandated insurance?


    Who did you say is inflating the replacement costs? The state owned insurer? Yeah.. the others(private) want the 400 % increase too! Ah. And your claim is that this is not how capitalism works? Uh did you just read the part that states PRIVATE.. yeah you know like STATE FARM, ALLSTATE etc..

    You're right - it's not. Because it isn't capitalism. The key problem is that for years rates were too low and capped because of regulatory restrictions - and now to catch up, yes you are seeing some really high increases in rates particularly as homes have been built closer and closer to shore. Uh this is NOT happening in NC, SC, Georgia, Texas, Calif, New Jersey, New York ,Maryland.. get the drift yet?

    Insurance however is cyclical - ignoring for a moment regulations. What always happens is that rates harden, insurers then attract more capital and they get more competitive driving down rates. What happens when you restrict rates from rising so that insurers have the opportunity to recapitalize and get better returns is that insurers just choose to leave or don't write new policies. This is what is happening.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 16, 2012 5:43 AM GMT
    meninlove said

    "Insurance however is cyclical - ignoring for a moment regulations. What always happens is that rates harden, insurers then attract more capital and they get more competitive driving down rates. What happens when you restrict rates from rising so that insurers have the opportunity to recapitalize and get better returns is that insurers just choose to leave or don't write new policies. This is what is happening."

    hmmm, except that in this case gov't is behaving exactly like a business that's able to raise rates; they're doing so, at a vastly inflated rate as Tropical's numbers show from his insurance policy.

    Do you think that private insurance would return only making small increases? I think their increases would match the gov't ones, at least. So stuck between a rock and a hard place in the US economy, what choice would a homeowner make? Probably the cheaper alternative, unless the private insurer could come up with something innovative, bundling services, adding extras etc.



    The state run insurer is the ONLY game in the state.. there are NO alternatives. None, nada, zip!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 16, 2012 5:46 AM GMT
    meninlove said

    "Insurance however is cyclical - ignoring for a moment regulations. What always happens is that rates harden, insurers then attract more capital and they get more competitive driving down rates. What happens when you restrict rates from rising so that insurers have the opportunity to recapitalize and get better returns is that insurers just choose to leave or don't write new policies. This is what is happening."

    hmmm, except that in this case gov't is behaving exactly like a business that's able to raise rates; they're doing so, at a vastly inflated rate as Tropical's numbers show from his insurance policy.

    Do you think that private insurance would return only making small increases? I think their increases would match the gov't ones, at least. So stuck between a rock and a hard place in the US economy, what choice would a homeowner make? Probably the cheaper alternative, unless the private insurer could come up with something innovative, bundling services, adding extras etc.


    I think that the government insurer has a big problem. In a nutshell:
    http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/banking/citizens-reserves-at-45b/1180130

    With reserves only at 4.5b - consider that one hurricane - hurricane Irene caused 3-5 billion in damage and it was relatively weak in hitting the US.

    They are not acting like a business but instead I suspect they are forcing through increased rates by artificially increasing the costs of replacement. Rates can't just be deregulated - and yet still insurance rates are too low given that other insurers are still leaving, Citizens has to be disassembled and eliminated so that it can't underprice insurance or else you're left with the same problem.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 16, 2012 5:49 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    meninlove said

    "Insurance however is cyclical - ignoring for a moment regulations. What always happens is that rates harden, insurers then attract more capital and they get more competitive driving down rates. What happens when you restrict rates from rising so that insurers have the opportunity to recapitalize and get better returns is that insurers just choose to leave or don't write new policies. This is what is happening."

    hmmm, except that in this case gov't is behaving exactly like a business that's able to raise rates; they're doing so, at a vastly inflated rate as Tropical's numbers show from his insurance policy.

    Do you think that private insurance would return only making small increases? I think their increases would match the gov't ones, at least. So stuck between a rock and a hard place in the US economy, what choice would a homeowner make? Probably the cheaper alternative, unless the private insurer could come up with something innovative, bundling services, adding extras etc.


    I think that the government insurer has a big problem. In a nutshell:
    http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/banking/citizens-reserves-at-45b/1180130

    With reserves only at 4.5b - consider that one hurricane - hurricane Irene caused 3-5 billion in damage and it was relatively weak in hitting the US.

    They are not acting like a business but instead I suspect they are forcing through increased rates by artificially increasing the costs of replacement. Rates can't just be deregulated - and yet still insurance rates are too low given that other insurers are still leaving, Citizens has to be disassembled and eliminated so that it can't underprice insurance or else you're left with the same problem.
    5 to 6 grand a year on a 30,000 dollar house.. yeah, that makes alot of sense.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 16, 2012 5:49 AM GMT
    TropicalMark said
    riddler78 said

    Insurance however is cyclical - ignoring for a moment regulations. What always happens is that rates harden, insurers then attract more capital and they get more competitive driving down rates. What happens when you restrict rates from rising so that insurers have the opportunity to recapitalize and get better returns is that insurers just choose to leave or don't write new policies. This is what is happening.
    Sorry kiddo But Ive been paying Insurance for many years before you were born.. It isnt "cyclic" It goes UP and has NEVER gone down in well over the 37 yrs Ive been payin it.
    icon_rolleyes.gif


    It is cyclical - well the wholesale side is at least because most insurers by excess of loss insurance to reduce some of their risk - and you see the patterns pretty consistently. After a disaster insurance rates rise then stabilize after other capital comes into the market in response to better returns and then the free for all in competition happens again.

    In the other markets you cite, exception being Louisiana, the markets are already pretty healthy and rates are where they should be relative to what percentage of their states are coastal and the rates they already pay.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 16, 2012 5:50 AM GMT
    TropicalMark said
    riddler78 said
    meninlove said

    "Insurance however is cyclical - ignoring for a moment regulations. What always happens is that rates harden, insurers then attract more capital and they get more competitive driving down rates. What happens when you restrict rates from rising so that insurers have the opportunity to recapitalize and get better returns is that insurers just choose to leave or don't write new policies. This is what is happening."

    hmmm, except that in this case gov't is behaving exactly like a business that's able to raise rates; they're doing so, at a vastly inflated rate as Tropical's numbers show from his insurance policy.

    Do you think that private insurance would return only making small increases? I think their increases would match the gov't ones, at least. So stuck between a rock and a hard place in the US economy, what choice would a homeowner make? Probably the cheaper alternative, unless the private insurer could come up with something innovative, bundling services, adding extras etc.


    I think that the government insurer has a big problem. In a nutshell:
    http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/banking/citizens-reserves-at-45b/1180130

    With reserves only at 4.5b - consider that one hurricane - hurricane Irene caused 3-5 billion in damage and it was relatively weak in hitting the US.

    They are not acting like a business but instead I suspect they are forcing through increased rates by artificially increasing the costs of replacement. Rates can't just be deregulated - and yet still insurance rates are too low given that other insurers are still leaving, Citizens has to be disassembled and eliminated so that it can't underprice insurance or else you're left with the same problem.
    5 to 6 grand a year on a 30,000 dollar house.. yeah, that makes alot of sense.


    Then you may well be subsidizing others - I can't know for sure what your situation is, but the other alternative is to move inland.