The issue is that either the renter or the owner must in some way pay insurance and property taxes if they want a "permanent roof" with utilities like electricity, gas and water. Because of this, many people-at least in California, where I currently reside-are living in tents. No taxes, rent, mortgages, or insurance. The number of people who tell me they live in their car that I meet amazes me. Its crazy out here!
It’s getting wild by the day. The prices of homes are quite ridiculous and Mortgage prices has been skyrocketing on a roll(currently over 7%). Sometimes i wonder if to just invest my spare cash into the stock market and wait for a housing crash or just go ahead to buy a home anyways.
I get such worries too. I'm 50 and retiring early. Already worried of the future and where its headed, especially in terms of financies and how to get by. I'm also considering making my first investment in the stock market, but how can I do so given that the market has been in a mess for the majority of the year?
This is precisely why I like having a portfolio coach guide my day-to-day market decisions: with their extensive knowledge of going long and short at the same time, using risk for its asymmetrical upside and laying it off as a hedge against the inevitable downward turns, their skillset makes it nearly impossible for them to underperform. I've been utilizing a portfolio coach for more than two years, and I've made over $200,000.
@@williamDonaldson432 Please how can I connect to your advisor? My funds are being murdered by inflation, and I'm looking for a more profitable investing strategy to put them to work.
Please how can I connect to your advisor? My funds are being murdered by inflation, and I'm looking for a more profitable investing strategy to put them to work.
I understand why they're struggling, but why should other taxpayers be subsidizing their homeowners insurance? It's their choice to live in the middle of nowhere or right next to a forest with overhead power lines.
Insurance is just socialization of risk. If everyone is subject to significant risk, then costs will be higher for everyone. The first woman had a $33k quote for a $1.5 million limit, so that's about 2%, meaning that there's an expectation of the hotel burning down once in 50 years. I'm no fan of the insurance industry, but it doesn't seem that farfetched given the crazy fires we've had in the past 10 years or so. edit: I kept watching, and I feel for the lady, it's a crazy amount.
Our home insurance has doubled and we had to buy the California Fair Plan. This has been very challenging and has impacted our way of life. We can’t send our kids to a 4 year college, we rarely go out to eat, and we have not been able to go on a family vacation. We need change NOW!!
To prevent wildfires, just follow Trump's genius advice: "Rake the leaves in the forest". There, problem solved. Thanks, Mr. Stable Genius. Why didn't I think of that?
I’m nowhere near a forest, I live in a subdivision and all utilities are underground. We are designated a fire safe community, yet me and all of my neighbors are canceled. We have cut down a significant number of trees. The insurance companies say they all have to come down and those in our parks. Talk about deforestation…..
@@jasonborne5724 wasn't talking about you specifically. But I've heard that these insurance companies hire third-party assessors who'd fly drones over the area to look for issues with roofs or debris in the yard.
@@tomh5529 I have no problem with insurance companies doing that and dropping people that have hazardous junk on their property/ roof. Your original comment would also apply to tens of millions of people who live in an area that has other natural disasters. Hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, earthquakes, etc. we all can’t live in a “safe space “. I could also apply that logic to anyone living in a city that has riots and has their business, or home vandalized, or burned. “You just shouldn’t live there, what do you think will happen?”
This is not a State problem, It is a individual homeowners problem People who cannot afford their homes, Must make difficult choices But neither the Tax Payer or low risk homeowners should be forced to subsidize high risk homeowners.
In 39 previous comments, not one said a word about reducing the risk of the huge incident losses by making homes less likely to burn when a fire does happen. This is achievable by reducing nearby fuels strategically and by improving ember resistance of the home itself and the few feet adjacent. The issue isn't the problems in remote forests (initiated by clear-cutting converting fire resistant old growth into dog-fir secondary forest). That's BS for the logging industry. The issue is close to densely developed areas. Take the Caldor Fire, which burned a huge area of forest and a lot of structures scattered within it. But then it burned right down to, and jumped clear OVER, South Lake Tahoe without burning any houses. So reducing loss of homes in these modern fires is proven to be feasible.
Bascially you’re asking insurance companies to rebuild you a home or a business once every 5 - 7 years. If you’re in a high risk fire zone. It’s really no different from what Florida is experience now with 2 back to back hurricanes Helene and Milton. Doesn’t matter do time the government or a private insurance company there is not way to get the kinds of returns you need from the premiums people Pay to rebuild every 5 -7 years. Imagine if I said you… I need you to save enough money to rebuild your home in 7 years.
Very frustrating … costs are soaring… home & auto bundling are being dropped .. now we have hazard Ins only yet have not been able to receive documents stating who or what is being covered… yet has tripled in costs…(separate auto at double the price)
Find I hard to believe that the majority never file a claim but a handful that do the insurance companies say it’s hard to do business as if they pay 100%
Most insurance companies are publicly traded corporations. As such, the board of directors has a fiduciary duty to maximize profits for the shareholders, and can be sued if they don't. As a result, if the corporation can't make money, it goes out of business. It may be time to nationalize the insurance industry, the way Iran nationalized Aramco during the 1950s. It worked!.
People need to end building homes in the fire zones and go back to cabins if it burns the loss is 100k vs 6,7 or 800k homes and pools and have the state insure homes like this
Just drop the requirement from lenders to have insurance to have a mortgage. Just cut them out completely from the picture. If you already pay private mortgage insurance (to make the lender whole in the event of non payment or loss) what’s the point of having homeowners insurance ? If you’re wealthy enough to afford insurance, then it should be optional. Problem solved
We need to use the caltrans approach for homes in natural disaster areas and health care. Profits need to be removed from the equasion. Good riddence to these vultures hoping to feed and profit on people's fears pain and misfortune!
There’s no affordable insurance for people in wildfire zones unless other people (ie other taxpayers) subsidize the risk. I’d let people in these zones self-insure if their mortgage companies let them.
How about a story about California self insuring? A quick check on the web revealed some interesting facts. Total value of property loses over 2018 to 2022 was $18.7 billion. That is less than $5 billion per year. 2020 was the worst fire season on record which resulted in $10 billion in property loses. Establishing a $10 billion self insurance pot would cost $714 per home annually in California. It would be a mandatory tax. No one gets out of it. In addition, human caused loses are 10 times higher than lighting caused loses - accidental and arson. Significant prison time along with increased surveillance (drone, satellite) during the fire season might change that lopsided statistic. Consider digging a little deeper to find potential solutions that get the insurance noose off our necks.
If I was an insurance company, I wouldn’t insure any house outside of an urban area. Too risky. Too much brush and trees. Too dry. If you choose to live in the middle of a tinder box, that’s your own problem. The rest of us live in normal areas.
That is a very limited viewpoint. It affects everyone. If you actually paid attention to the story, thousands living in suburban areas are getting cancellation notices. Also, do you think your water comes from? And who maintains it along with other natural resources. Where should those people live? In your cushy suburban, cookie cutter, neighborhood?
@@mr.d7237 I agree with you. Hospitals should refuse to treat people who get shot and stabbed in urban areas. It’s an expected consequence of living there. Medical insurance is too high…..
![Megan Thee Stallion - Bigger In Texas [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QxTkZTLWdo4/mqdefault.jpg)
![Gucci Mane & Sexyy Red - You Don't Love Me [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/j7IBqyFKT4c/mqdefault.jpg)
The issue is that either the renter or the owner must in some way pay insurance and property taxes if they want a "permanent roof" with utilities like electricity, gas and water. Because of this, many people-at least in California, where I currently reside-are living in tents. No taxes, rent, mortgages, or insurance. The number of people who tell me they live in their car that I meet amazes me. Its crazy out here!
It’s getting wild by the day. The prices of homes are quite ridiculous and Mortgage prices has been skyrocketing on a roll(currently over 7%). Sometimes i wonder if to just invest my spare cash into the stock market and wait for a housing crash or just go ahead to buy a home anyways.
I get such worries too. I'm 50 and retiring early. Already worried of the future and where its headed, especially in terms of financies and how to get by. I'm also considering making my first investment in the stock market, but how can I do so given that the market has been in a mess for the majority of the year?
This is precisely why I like having a portfolio coach guide my day-to-day market decisions: with their extensive knowledge of going long and short at the same time, using risk for its asymmetrical upside and laying it off as a hedge against the inevitable downward turns, their skillset makes it nearly impossible for them to underperform. I've been utilizing a portfolio coach for more than two years, and I've made over $200,000.
@@williamDonaldson432 Please how can I connect to your advisor? My funds are being murdered by inflation, and I'm looking for a more profitable investing strategy to put them to work.
Please how can I connect to your advisor? My funds are being murdered by inflation, and I'm looking for a more profitable investing strategy to put them to work.
I understand why they're struggling, but why should other taxpayers be subsidizing their homeowners insurance? It's their choice to live in the middle of nowhere or right next to a forest with overhead power lines.
If people are not able to get home owners insurance, then they can’t even buy a house because most people need a mortgage.
Great reporting ABC10, I love to see a new agency get real news out there. Thank you - vey helpful!!!
Insurance is not designed to help you, its designed to make money for the insurance companies.
It's called risk management.
found the scumbag insurance agent
Insurance is just socialization of risk. If everyone is subject to significant risk, then costs will be higher for everyone. The first woman had a $33k quote for a $1.5 million limit, so that's about 2%, meaning that there's an expectation of the hotel burning down once in 50 years. I'm no fan of the insurance industry, but it doesn't seem that farfetched given the crazy fires we've had in the past 10 years or so.
edit: I kept watching, and I feel for the lady, it's a crazy amount.
Thank you for the excellent journalism and coverage of this topic
You can't make laws to force people to get insurance. Then you can't find insurance.
I JUST GOTTA WONDER how our ancestors lived for centuries without insurance companies.
With all those open flames for cooking and heating.
I'm build my home in the forest of Concrete and rebar. Tempered windows and outside fire sprinklers on the roof and not have insurance.
Our home insurance has doubled and we had to buy the California Fair Plan. This has been very challenging and has impacted our way of life. We can’t send our kids to a 4 year college, we rarely go out to eat, and we have not been able to go on a family vacation. We need change NOW!!
INSURANCE POOR, THAT IS WHAT THE GOVERNMENT WANTS.
Welcome to the Hunger Games, May the Odds be NEVER, EVER in your Favor !!!!!!!
In Florida I pay $9800 for insurance 1200sqf house!
After Milton probably I can insure my house…
To prevent wildfires, just follow Trump's genius advice: "Rake the leaves in the forest". There, problem solved. Thanks, Mr. Stable Genius. Why didn't I think of that?
You buy a house in the middle of the forest, in the midst of a drought and rising fire risk. Just what do you think will happen?
I’m nowhere near a forest, I live in a subdivision and all utilities are underground. We are designated a fire safe community, yet me and all of my neighbors are canceled. We have cut down a significant number of trees. The insurance companies say they all have to come down and those in our parks. Talk about deforestation…..
@@jasonborne5724 wasn't talking about you specifically. But I've heard that these insurance companies hire third-party assessors who'd fly drones over the area to look for issues with roofs or debris in the yard.
@@tomh5529 I have no problem with insurance companies doing that and dropping people that have hazardous junk on their property/ roof. Your original comment would also apply to tens of millions of people who live in an area that has other natural disasters. Hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, earthquakes, etc. we all can’t live in a “safe space “. I could also apply that logic to anyone living in a city that has riots and has their business, or home vandalized, or burned. “You just shouldn’t live there, what do you think will happen?”
@@jasonborne5724 Natural disasters that could have significant losses for the insurance companies.
This is not a State problem, It is a individual homeowners problem People who cannot afford their homes, Must make difficult choices But neither the Tax Payer or low risk homeowners should be forced to subsidize high risk homeowners.
In 39 previous comments, not one said a word about reducing the risk of the huge incident losses by making homes less likely to burn when a fire does happen. This is achievable by reducing nearby fuels strategically and by improving ember resistance of the home itself and the few feet adjacent. The issue isn't the problems in remote forests (initiated by clear-cutting converting fire resistant old growth into dog-fir secondary forest). That's BS for the logging industry. The issue is close to densely developed areas. Take the Caldor Fire, which burned a huge area of forest and a lot of structures scattered within it. But then it burned right down to, and jumped clear OVER, South Lake Tahoe without burning any houses. So reducing loss of homes in these modern fires is proven to be feasible.
Bascially you’re asking insurance companies to rebuild you a home or a business once every 5 - 7 years. If you’re in a high risk fire zone.
It’s really no different from what Florida is experience now with 2 back to back hurricanes Helene and Milton. Doesn’t matter do time the government or a private insurance company there is not way to get the kinds of returns you need from the premiums people
Pay to rebuild every 5 -7 years.
Imagine if I said you… I need you to save enough money to rebuild your home in 7 years.
Feel bad for her..that’s unsustainable
Very frustrating … costs are soaring… home & auto bundling are being dropped .. now we have hazard Ins only yet have not been able to receive documents stating who or what is being covered… yet has tripled in costs…(separate auto at double the price)
Hilarious how the U.S. is so broken. The government should mandate maximum rates and not allow companies to refuse insurance.
Find I hard to believe that the majority never file a claim but a handful that do the insurance companies say it’s hard to do business as if they pay 100%
Most insurance companies are publicly traded corporations. As such, the board of directors has a fiduciary duty to maximize profits for the shareholders, and can be sued if they don't. As a result, if the corporation can't make money, it goes out of business. It may be time to nationalize the insurance industry, the way Iran nationalized Aramco during the 1950s. It worked!.
18:29 Anyone who lobbies for the insurance companies is in league with the devil.
People need to end building homes in the fire zones and go back to cabins if it burns the loss is 100k vs 6,7 or 800k homes and pools
and have the state insure homes like this
Home ownership is a scam
Fr
Just drop the requirement from lenders to have insurance to have a mortgage. Just cut them out completely from the picture. If you already pay private mortgage insurance (to make the lender whole in the event of non payment or loss) what’s the point of having homeowners insurance ? If you’re wealthy enough to afford insurance, then it should be optional. Problem solved
“We’re suffering out here.” LEAVE. Your problem is your problem. Don’t make it everyone else’s problem.
At least CA is doing its part by providing outrageously prices last resort home insurance
We need to use the caltrans approach for homes in natural disaster areas and health care. Profits need to be removed from the equasion. Good riddence to these vultures hoping to feed and profit on people's fears pain and misfortune!
There’s no affordable insurance for people in wildfire zones unless other people (ie other taxpayers) subsidize the risk. I’d let people in these zones self-insure if their mortgage companies let them.
I'm so glad I'm not old! To waste years with this foolishness
Make it profitable to be a home insurancer and there will be no shortage.
How about a story about California self insuring? A quick check on the web revealed some interesting facts. Total value of property loses over 2018 to 2022 was $18.7 billion. That is less than $5 billion per year. 2020 was the worst fire season on record which resulted in $10 billion in property loses. Establishing a $10 billion self insurance pot would cost $714 per home annually in California. It would be a mandatory tax. No one gets out of it.
In addition, human caused loses are 10 times higher than lighting caused loses - accidental and arson. Significant prison time along with increased surveillance (drone, satellite) during the fire season might change that lopsided statistic.
Consider digging a little deeper to find potential solutions that get the insurance noose off our necks.
Can we now impeach Newson? He's making everything worse
If I was an insurance company, I wouldn’t insure any house outside of an urban area. Too risky. Too much brush and trees. Too dry.
If you choose to live in the middle of a tinder box, that’s your own problem. The rest of us live in normal areas.
That is a very limited viewpoint. It affects everyone. If you actually paid attention to the story, thousands living in suburban areas are getting cancellation notices. Also, do you think your water comes from? And who maintains it along with other natural resources. Where should those people live? In your cushy suburban, cookie cutter, neighborhood?
@@kvl505 stop whining
@@mr.d7237 I agree with you. Hospitals should refuse to treat people who get shot and stabbed in urban areas. It’s an expected consequence of living there. Medical insurance is too high…..
Just pass a law to prohibit forest fire.
😮
So the only options are caving to insurance cartel price gouging, or no insurance at all. Yay capitalism…
More Marxist regulations please
Another useless music r
A charity?? To run a business!?!?!?!
Maybe she shouldn't be so foolish as to compete in the same market with corporate hotel chains! 💅
60,000 a year for a business doesn't sound like a lot.