Quote:
Originally Posted by Drolefille
The incentive to pay the fee is not to lose your house or your life to a fire. A rural house is not inherently more flame retardant than an urban one. There are no fire plains like there are flood plains and a coin flip is not in any way comparable unless coming up tails means losing everything you own.
Your coin flip scenario is really more like "spend 75 a year and no matter whether its heads or tails someone will at least make the effort to help you" vs. "lose everything that you own including possibly your life if you flip tails 6 times in a row, but that's really unlikely so you're probably safe, right?" There is no reasonable cost/benefit analysis present.
Economists may try but life does not work like a spreadsheet.
|
I don't mean to patronize, but . . . you really can't see how differing odds can and should influence public policy? I'm kind of confused here - you're not willing at all to look at the other side here?
Do you own earthquake insurance? If you're anywhere near the Midwest (EDIT: I thought you lived in the region), the risk is minuscule but the risk of ruin is huge. You're apparently arguing that any massive ROR is something people should be forced to mitigate - so should we have mandatory earthquake insurance?
Also, fire is BETTER than flood plains, and not worse, as far as comparison - we all have the SAME fire exposure, minus (essentially) "smoking" or "making fireworks."
I guess I'm just confused why you're so intractable here. (REMOVED PERSONAL COMMENTARY THAT MAY/MAY NOT BE PATRONIZING)
Threaded Mode
