What I'm taking away from this post is it's possible and probably likely that insurers are building in unrealistic worst cases into their risk models. This leads to inappropriately high insurance premiums and since the insurance industry isn't particularly transparent we are not able to effectively challenge the rates. Is that a fair assessment?
ci would argue a biggrer factor in this difficulty is the public being utterly incapable of ever engaging in productive debate about anything, coupled with the inability to recognize it.
It's the job of regulators to make sure the assumptions going into the risk models ARE reasonable. I'm not sure how feasible it is for this process to be transplant enough for the public to judge the regulators.
"that ratemaking practices should be free from too much public scrutiny."
On the contrary. The scrutiny should ensure that ratemaking based on the best modelling (including but is no privileged way the effects of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere) and modeling of risk adaption that public policy makers and policy holders can take.
This clearly was not the case in California before the wildfires or in Florida.
What I'm taking away from this post is it's possible and probably likely that insurers are building in unrealistic worst cases into their risk models. This leads to inappropriately high insurance premiums and since the insurance industry isn't particularly transparent we are not able to effectively challenge the rates. Is that a fair assessment?
A lack of transparency makes it difficult for the public to engage in productive debate about insurance.
ci would argue a biggrer factor in this difficulty is the public being utterly incapable of ever engaging in productive debate about anything, coupled with the inability to recognize it.
It's the job of regulators to make sure the assumptions going into the risk models ARE reasonable. I'm not sure how feasible it is for this process to be transplant enough for the public to judge the regulators.
"that ratemaking practices should be free from too much public scrutiny."
On the contrary. The scrutiny should ensure that ratemaking based on the best modelling (including but is no privileged way the effects of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere) and modeling of risk adaption that public policy makers and policy holders can take.
This clearly was not the case in California before the wildfires or in Florida.