[geeks] Mr Bill?

[Dan Sikorski]

Mike Hebel wrote:
> Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
>
>> I don't necessarily disagree with the attitude, though.  I tend to 
>> believe that if you don't have proper insurance for your property, 
>> you might deserve to lose your possessions.
> Yes and no.  No insurance might not be a choice.  Rebuilding in harms 
> way - definitely your choice.
>
> *hides in flame-proof bunker*
>
The insurance premiums reflect the risk.  If they don't, sooner or later 
the insurance company will fail.  If the insurance premiums are too high 
for an area, people will move. 

If you can't afford to lose something, and can't afford the insurance, 
you just can't afford the item, be it a car, house, or anything else.  
Anyone who owns anything runs the risk of it being destroyed or losing 
it's value.  If you do not want to be liable for that risk, you pay 
someone else (an insurance company) to take it.  If the government 
replaces these things for people, then our government is an insurance 
company, and our taxes the premium.  Given that they have no formal 
obligation to pay claims, that seems like a bad idea to me.

Let's not confuse this here, if roads, bridges, and government buildings 
are destroyed, those are government property and will need to be 
repaired or replaced by their owner, just like everything else.

    -Dan Sikorski