Hurricane Ian and the Future of Florida’s Home Insurance

TOPICS DISCUSSED

  • Centrism vs. Extremism Across the Globe

  • Florida’s Homeowners Insurance Crisis

  • Outside Politics: Pantsuit Politics goes to Oklahoma City

Thank you for being a part of our community! We couldn't do it without you. To become a financial supporter of the show, please visit our Patreon page, subscribe to our Premium content on Apple Podcasts Subscriptions, purchase a copy of our books, Now What? How to Move Forward When We’re Divided (About Basically Everything) and I Think You're Wrong (But I'm Listening), or share the word about our work in your own circles.

Sign up for our newsletter to keep up with all our news. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook for our real time reactions to breaking news, GIF news threads, and personal content. To purchase Pantsuit Politics merchandise, check out our store or visit our merchandise partners: TeePublic, Stealth Steel Designs, and Desert Studio Jewelry. Gift a personalized message from Sarah and Beth through Cameo. You can find information and links for all our sponsors on our website.

EPISODE RESOURCES

CENTRISM VS. EXTREMISM

FLORIDA’S HOMEOWNERS INSURANCE CRISIS

TRANSCRIPT

Sarah [00:00:07] This is Sarah Stewart Holland.  

Beth [00:00:08] And this is Beth Silvers. 

Sarah [00:00:10] Thank you for joining us for Pantsuit Politics.  

Beth [00:00:26] Thank you so much for joining us for our new episode of Pantsuit Politics. Today, we're going to do a little like one sentence book club on the idea of centrism and extremism. And then we're going to talk about Hurricane Ian and the difficult problem of insuring homes in places that are at high risk for natural disasters. And then Outside of Politics, we want to just gush about how much we loved spending time in Oklahoma City after spending four days there.  

Sarah [00:00:52] We love seeing new places and meeting new people-- that was my first visit to the state of Oklahoma-- in part because it helps us do our work so much better. We gain a deeper understanding of the issues at play where we are and listening to people on the ground. Somewhere else helps us better as thinkers and speakers. We also think it's an important service to this community. I love when people come up to the meets and greets and they're just like, "Thank you for coming to Oklahoma." Like, people just want you to see their home in more complex ways. And we absolutely love doing that. If you work somewhere or you go to school or church somewhere that would enjoy having us come speak, please check out our website for more details. We have six spots left for next year, so you can reach out to our managing director, Alise, at Hello@pantsuitpolitics.com for more details.  

Beth [00:01:42] Next up, there's just a quote from Israeli Prime Minister, Yair Lapid, that I can't stop thinking about, and I want to get all your thoughts, Sarah. Sarah, whenever you and I are traveling, we have all these conversations that will stop at some point and say, oh, we should save that for an episode, or I wish we had been recording that. And so there's this quote that I've been thinking about from an Atlantic piece. It is from Israel's prime minister, Yair Lapid, and it reminds me of the kind of conversation starter that causes that to happen on our trips. And I thought it would be good to actually save that conversation for the podcast. So here's the quote, and I'm just really interested in what all it brings to mind for you. Prime Minister Lapid said, "Everybody is stuck in this left versus right traditional dynamic. But today, all over the world, it's centrist versus extremist. Extremists are very good at marching and screaming, but they're not very good at running countries and making sure they operate for the benefit of the people." It felt relevant to me in many contexts and I wondered what context come to mind for you.  

Sarah [00:02:54] I understand the simmering resentment you can sense underneath that quote. I mean, Israel is on it's like eleventieth election in the past four years. Lapid built a new coalition that finally ousted Netanyahu, who I would categorize as an extremist. So I get it. I get it. I think you see it in lots of places up to and including the Supreme Court of the United States. I think I quibble with it slightly because I'm not sure if extremist on either side can be grouped together. I think  the thread is very different from the extreme left than it is from the extreme right. And I think that's always important to keep in mind. But you do see this sense of it's easier to crow about culture wars or the problems without offering a solution and actually getting into the nitty gritty of governing. I think we're going to talk about that a little bit in our next segment when we talk about Florida and some of the issues there post-hurricane Ian. It reminds me of a quote we passed around from Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg. He was at the Texas Tribune, which was full of hot takes and good quotes. And he was talking about DeSantis and he was, like, he's just interested in the problem. He's interested in exploring the problem and not interested in offering solutions.  

Pete Buttigieg [00:04:26] But these are the kinds of stunts you see from people who don't have a solution. It's one thing to call attention to a problem. It's another to just call attention to the problem because the problem is actually more useful to you than the solution. And that helps you call attention to yourself.  

Sarah [00:04:44] And, to me, that's more than like extremist or centrists. That, to me, is the dividing line. Are you interested in mixing up, stirring up people about the problem, or do you actually have a solution in mind?  

Beth [00:04:59] And related to whether you have a solution in mind, are you willing to tolerate some amount of failure in pursuit of solutions? Or do you want to exploit every failure as a mechanism to say, well, our side should win because that side tried to solve a problem and had some failure attached to it. I was reading about the Wisconsin Senate race last night, and I was struck by the use of the word extremist associated with the Democratic candidate, Mandela Barnes. Ron Johnson has made real progress in polling in that race because voters think that Barnes is too extreme. And the examples given in the article about extremism were his stances on things like bail reform. And I don't want to make light of the the failures attached with bail reform efforts all over the country. Criminal justice reform is a real passion of mine. I've been following this issue, and I cannot dispute the studies that show that bail reform has had some unintended consequences and some bad ones that need to be addressed. Is that extremism, though, to support the continued pursuit of an objective and have some failure around the solutions that you try? I don't think so. And I would say that Ron Johnson has an element of extremism associated with him because he has been one of the voices propping up a lot of, I think, really extreme rhetoric from the right. And so I don't want to get stuck in definitions of what extreme means or what center centrist means, but it just jumped out at me when I saw this quote, like, oh, who's trying to do a thing when they govern versus who is trying to just be a thing? Maybe that's the difference. I just want to be seen as embodying a certain set of values, and that's my governing philosophy, versus people who think I want to do work in that position. And it's not all about just my identity as I occupy it.  

Sarah [00:06:59] I think the risk when we talk about extremism is-- this is a theme recently on Pantsuit Politics-- we're asking the world to hold a lot. I mean, are we talking about extreme authoritarianism because extremism mixed with authoritarian power becomes really brittle, really fast. See Russia, when you have extreme power and extreme beliefs that no one questions because of your extreme power, you get really, really, brittle. And that's a dangerous position to be in. I think that's what you're seeing play out in Russia. That no one told or continues to tell Vladimir Putin the truth, and so his choices become more extreme and more extreme. And it's becoming a more and more dangerous position for the Russian military, for sure, and for the Russian people. So I think that's different than the extremism you see coming from the the right in the United States, because so much of it doesn't have a lot of authoritarian power behind it. They're working on that. They're trying in many states to find the power to match those extreme positions. But I think that's always the risk, as a centrist, when you're trying to govern, is to distinguish between is this extreme rhetoric or is this extreme action? And how do I calibrate as a centrist to how big of a risk that particular extremism is? And I think that's really, really hard. I think we're tackling that in the United States. I think Italy's going to have to deal with that as its government takes a rightward direction. Lapid probably deals with this a lot in Israel. What is extreme rhetoric and who's ready to back up that rhetoric with more extreme power or more extreme violence as the case may be?  

Beth [00:08:46] Yeah, I was thinking about this in connection with the UK this morning, reading about how I think Reuters called it just a humiliating moment for the new Prime Minister, Liz Truss, who came in with this idea that she was going to cut, cut, cut, cut, cut from the UK's spending to the point where it had a really devastating economic fallout. 

Sarah [00:09:11] Well, she's cutting taxes, too, not just spending.  

Beth [00:09:14] Yeah. So this pullback on the whole idea of the size of government in the UK has had a lot of consequence and she's having to reverse course. To use the word extreme about those actions? I don't think so. I think that's a bad idea. Part of what I want to figure out is, where could we say, "I disagree with that idea. That's a bad idea. That's an idea that's hugely consequential," versus the kind of dangerous extremism that you see when someone like Putin tries to take power over another sovereign country. But it's just such a fine line. And I think that making distinctions politically right now is like one of the most difficult tasks we have to avoid just a nihilism where we all say, well, nothing matters because everyone's terrible and everything is extreme and everything is dangerous, so let's just get on with it. I don't want to be there. I want to be able to make those distinctions. And I think the Liz Truss situation is a little bit of a hard case because it did have such a pronounced backlash, but it's fixable, right? So it just seems like a bad idea to me.  

Sarah [00:10:19] Well, I don't know, when it's a bad idea, but you have a lot of power. When it's an extreme idea-- because it was, I think under any rubric the proposal was extreme. It was way outside the boundaries of normal economic policy. And so when it's an extreme idea and you have the power to back it up, well, then we have a problem. Again, that sort of distinction between-- yeah, state legislators all over the country have extreme ideas, but they don't have the power to do much about them. And so I think that's the difference. But she did, and that was both the difference and the problem, I think, not just for the UK but for the whole world economy. That was just sort of like, hey, no, absolutely not. But I think you're right. I mean, distinguishing between when it's just an extreme idea, a bad idea, an extreme bad idea, and when the power comes to play that now we're talking about extremism is different. And in some ways it's like, well, are we talking about a distinction without a difference? I don't think so. I think as you look across the globe, as you look at what's happening in Brazil and you look at what's happening in Europe, there was a really interesting conversation surrounding the invasion of Ukraine that basically the center of power in Europe is moving eastward, that it was Eastern Europe that was pushing when the invasion first began, and that Eastern Europe really sees France and Germany as failing. Now, is that [Inaudible] of centrism? Is because they want a more extreme intervention than traditionally centrist Europe does; is that's extremism? I don't think so. I don't think the people of Eastern Europe, the governments of Eastern Europe are extreme or are trafficking in some sort of extremism because they want a more intense intervention, more intense support for Ukraine. But I think that's what's hard too. Well, if the center is moving, is that a reflection of extremism or is that a reflection of something else?  

Beth [00:12:24] Centrism is so hard because it's always going to seem like a failure. I mean, the essence of centrism is we're not going to go all the way in one direction or another. And those directions are ideals that people hold and they're serious about. I think a lot about that. If you look at the past Congress, they have done some amazing work that will change this country for years to come. And not all in positive ways, there will be failure attached to it. And they also probably prevented some bigger failure by not going bigger on those ideas. And that means that you have a lot of people who are very dissatisfied with this Congress because they had better ideas that Congress didn't make happen. And there are people who think this Congress has done tremendous damage because there will be negative consequences to some of what they have done. And that's why I think more and more of the centrism is less of a political philosophy and more of a governing posture, where you say I'm willing to take some risk but not all the risk to accomplish everything because what I am most concerned with is maintaining a pace that allows people to continue to have confidence in the power that we hold. That's to me part of the difference with Liz Truss and others. I don't like her ideas, but she occupies her position legitimately. And while she is taking a lot of that power and using it, it does seem to be power that she holds. She can do these things, and there are ways to correct for her mistakes in that position. And when you get out of that range where someone is wielding their power legitimately-- and I think that's what takes you to the Supreme Court, which began its October term yesterday-- you have to ask are they wielding that power at a pace that allows people to continue to have confidence in it? And polling would suggest no. That a majority of the country is losing faith in the Supreme Court. And I think it's not that the court exceeded its power because we don't really have limitations on the power of the court in the United States. It is that they are wielding it so aggressively that it causes us to say, well, perhaps this is too much, perhaps it shouldn't be so.  

Sarah [00:14:41] So the problem with the Supreme Court is not just the pace. The problem with the Supreme Court is a lack of legitimacy because three of the majority were appointed by a president that lost the popular vote. Those two things in combination that I think is the real issue with the Supreme Court. And I think extremism is absolutely the right word to use. And with Liz Truss, it's like, yeah, she has power now, but it's not on a super steady foundation. I mean, what is this? They're like four prime ministers in six years. She  could very, very, quickly find herself facing a vote of no confidence. I know Boris is out there in the wings just bidding has time. So I think that's what puts her in a difficult position too and why I would not have taken such an extreme economic position. And I think she's probably learned that lesson. We'll just have to see what happens next, which is true for many, many, of these places around the world.  

Beth [00:15:37] That does seem defining. Like when you talk about the brittleness of power, I think all power has an element of fragility. And I like Lapid saying maybe we need to step back and realize that what used to be left and right is giving way to people being animated more by what they want to do with power understanding how fragile it is. We have people who understand how fragile it is, so they want to take all of it they can and run it as hard as they can while they have it. And people who are saying stability is more important, how can we maintain our structures over time? I think that's a good point about the personnel of the court. And I would say it goes back even before Tim McConnell not allowing a hearing to be held for Merrick Garland. You could also point to the elimination of the filibuster needed to confirm Supreme Court justices. I mean, we have a lot that's happened over the past few years and it feels like an acceleration in the fragility of that power in our institutions as a result. Well, thanks for doing a little-- I've been talking about one sentence book clubs lately. This is a little more than one sentence, but I like the idea of focusing in on a small thing and seeing what ideas come of it. Next up, we are going to turn our attention to Florida and discuss the financial ramifications of natural disasters.  

[00:17:10] As we are recording on Monday, at least 87 people have died as a result of Hurricane Ian. More than a thousand people have been rescued in parts of southwest and central Florida and first responders are still searching for survivors. About 771,000 homes, businesses, and other customers in Florida didn't have power as of Sunday afternoon. And that loss of power extends to folks in North Carolina and Virginia as well. So we want to say at the beginning here, we're going to talk about money. The people always matter more than the things always. And there is no replacement for those lives that have been lost. And for the survivors, we want to think about a particular aspect of this disaster today, which is homeowners insurance. Countless people survived but now are facing financial ruin and homelessness. Houses are just gone. If you look at some of the images, it's stunning. And if you are living that right now, our hearts are with you. So we want to think for those people who've just lost their homes about what recourse they have and what is and isn't working in insurance and regulation.  

Sarah [00:18:15] Yeah. When we were watching the forecast for Hurricane Ian come in, Maggie, one of the members of our team lives in Titusville, Florida, Dante, one of the OG listeners of Pantsuit Politics, lives in Orlando, was texting and was like the home insurance market here is about to collapse. Like, all the businesses are leaving. There are so few options people are trying to get them before hurricane season. And Maggie was like, yeah, even people who weren't hit by the hurricane but are flooded now their home insurance policies don't cover flood. So it was just like we were getting all these text messages about the situation. It was really interesting because as we were listening to them, I made all kinds of assumptions why the home insurance market in Florida was so close to collapse, only about half of which turned out to be true as we sat down and started doing research for this episode.  

Beth [00:19:05] Well, assumptions are not usually helpful as you're just pointing out it. So we don't want to assume anything about your level of familiarity with this topic, and thought a quick refresher might be helpful. Just thinking about what insurance is, it's a contract between a company and a customer, and that contract sets forth the terms on which an insurer will pay claims if something bad happens. Homeowner's policies are all different, but generally when you're buying a homeowner's policy, you're looking for coverage for destruction and damage to both the inside and outside of your home, the loss or theft of your belongings, and liability for harm to others that happens in your house. Your dog bites someone, for example. There are different levels of coverage. Some coverage just covers the actual cash value of something that has been damaged. There's a replacement cost level of coverage, and then there's extended replacement cost. That's what you really need in a situation like this-- that extended replacement costs coverage. Because if your home is severely damaged and you want to rebuild it, it's probably going to cost more now than when it was first built. And if you want to rebuild it to withstand more disastrous events, you especially need to put more money into it. The rate for the policy is going to depend on that level of coverage, as well as the insurer's assessment of risk associated with your home. So what condition is it in? Where's it located? What else has happened there? There is a big difference between homeowner's insurance and flood insurance. Your homeowner's policy will almost never cover floods or earthquakes because it's just too much exposure.  

Sarah [00:20:38] Yeah, it's interesting there was floods at a certain part of the 20th century and all the home insurance people got together were, like, no more; we will not be doing floods any more. I can sort of see it in part because it's not a distinct event, because it doesn't happen. I mean, it can obviously. I live in a flood country. We had a massive flood in Paducah that is still a part of our sort of community history. We have a flood wall. There's all these like sort of-- there was a moment where a cow was on a porch on the second floor. And that's like literally referenced in restaurants and art all over town. But this process is just not to be underestimated as far as just lengthyness, difficultness, stressfulness. There are so many stories still coming out of Mayfield where I live around tornadoes. We upped our home insurance afterwards because there was so much murmuring in my community, like, everybody was under-insured because of the rising cost of materials and supply chain issues. And so we abhored homeowner's insurance. But I had a friend who had a fire in his business and just the process to replace all that, to go through and to make the claims and prove what was there is exhausting. It's like a full time job. It's basically a full time job. So you pay all this money over the years, and the money is getting higher and higher if you live in the state of Florida-- if you live anywhere-- but particularly if you live in the state of Florida, and then you have these big situations like floods that aren't even covered. There's discussion that they could do the same thing around wildfires and they'll just say we're not going to cover that. So I was having a conversation with my stepdad this morning who has been in insurance for a long time. And he was, like, I just wonder if we'll end up with nationalized home insurance where we're covering the risk of other parts of the country who have less risk for some catastrophes and more risk for others and we'll just sort of level it all out. But I think that that's a really difficult situation to imagine. I wonder if we will get there because of climate change.  

Beth [00:22:37] Well, you need that because insurance is just a gamble. The insurer takes the risk of paying big claims by setting premiums that should both produce a profit and cover those big claims. And when you don't have a big pool where people only have insurance if they think they're going to need it, it doesn't work. And that's really what's happened with flood insurance. You have to buy it separately. And so we really only have flood insurance available through the federal government. There are a few other policies available, but it's almost all in the National Flood Insurance Program. It is expensive. It averages $1,000 a year and it protects only the tiniest fraction of people because it's not mandatory. So nationwide, 4% of people have flood insurance. Sarah, do y'all have a lot of flood insurance in Paducah? Do you know if it's very common there since you're a flood country.  

Sarah [00:23:30] I know we do not have flood insurance which-- because my husband loves insurance, and if there is insurance to be had, and it is had by many around he will have it, would lead me to believe that, no, there's not a lot of flood insurance in my community despite the fact that we have flooding. Now, because we have the flood wall, the flooding situation in Paducah is very different than it is in other places. There are parts near some of the creeks that drain into the river that there's regular flooding. But I don't remember from my time as a city commissioner when we were deliberating some changes that people in those areas had a lot of flood insurance. And sadly it's like even the infrastructure improvements that would prevent flooding were still hard to get, hard to argue for, hard to get people to pay for. Even people who live in the flood plains, it's very frustrating.  

Beth [00:24:24] Well, if you look at the nine counties that were declared disaster areas-- not the only counties impacted, but the ones that were federally declared disaster areas after Hurricane Ian-- only 29% of people in those counties had flood insurance. And it breaks down like you might imagine. The wealthier places have a higher rate of flood insurance than the poorer places. So, again, you got this big problem because the pool for paying claims isn't big enough. What you need for insurance to work is a lot of people who don't get floods to pay into this pool so that when the flood happens there is money there to pay it out. So for the people who've been through Hurricane Ian, a huge issue is going to be is, is this damage from water or from wind? Because if it's from wind, it will be covered by your homeowner's policy. If it's from water, it won't. And that will lead to lots of litigation which is a big issue in Florida.  

Sarah [00:25:15] Yeah. So we're spending a lot of time on weather. And what we learned as we dug into this is that part of the issue in Florida, it began with weather. It began with some of the big storms that hit in the early aughts, and the national insurers like State Farm being, like, we're out. We can't do this with you anymore Florida. Which is what I expected. I expected, okay, this market is collapsing because it is a very difficult market to insure, which is true. But what also happened is that in the wake of these national insurers, they had small in-state insurance companies who just don't have the resources to manage that level of exposure, in particular because Florida had very friendly laws for insurance claims. This is the moment in our research where I was, like, what is happening? For example, Florida accounted for 76% of all homeowner lawsuits nationwide in 2021. So it gets really complicated. But you'll read NBC News did a big report that they had roofing contractors going home to home and saying, "Can I inspect for storm damage?" And the home insurance says, "Oh, of course." And then under Florida law, they could assign their insurance business to the contractor. They also have very friendly laws for attorney fees. So between the contractors and the attorney fees, the insurance industry is arguing that they exploited this. And that's why you have this really, really, disproportionate amount of lawsuits. That's sort of a long time. You have like four years in Florida to file a homeowner's law lawsuit.  

[00:26:48] So Governor DeSantis had the special session to address it. But you can see how this is a risky political move, because your opponents are going to say Governor DeSantis is restricting your right to sue an insurer that doesn't cover you. And so he did some things, they're not going to pay off soon enough. Some people say there's still as many holes in what he did. The insurance companies are unhappy. The trial lawyers are unhappy. I'm not sure who to believe-- the trial lawyers or the insurance companies. In the course of my research, I was starting to get ads. Do you think your claim was unfairly denied? Call this lawyer. Go get legal help in Florida. So it sounds like a mess to me. I understand that this might be a friendly legal environment, but in addition, it just feels like the market is broken because this is a place with such elevated risk that people keep moving to. I have questions. I have so many questions. Axios did a thing recently about how all these places with increased exposure due to climate change are experiencing an influx of population. And it's like if you live with all of your family in Florida, that's not who I'm talking about. But in today's day and age and the year of our Lord, '22 people who are moving in great numbers to hot places, hurricane prone places-- I'm going to be honest-- I'm a little confused. I'm a little confused by that.  

Beth [00:28:24] I think if you look at Florida and the litigation aspect, for example, you can see how what we have here is an unsustainable situation. Like, modeling out risk in Florida is becoming increasingly difficult. One expert told The Washington Post that Florida is the riskiest piece of land in the world for insurers from a catastrophe standpoint.  

Sarah [00:28:46] I mean, look at the forecasting for Hurricane Ian. They were debating that up until the last minute. The models were weird and in disagreement with each other. So if they can't agree on a single hurricane, how the heck are they going to agree on predicting future hurricanes?  

Beth [00:29:00] Well, and the state regulator, as part of its exercise to make sure that insurance companies are solvent, (that they can pay the claims on the policies that they've sold) they have the insurance companies model out the exposure based on old disasters. Like, they'll pick up a 1902 hurricane as an example and say let's model out what the exposure would be today. Which I get it, using history as a predictor has always been important, but you can see these disasters accelerating in their intensity and affecting areas that they haven't previously affected. So any way, you're trying to deal with all that risk with an insurance industry and then there is the layer of insurance for the insurers, right? These insurance companies buy their own policies to protect them when they have to pay out massive amounts of claims. And then there is the industry of lawyers and contractors making money through insurance litigation, and everybody wants profit at every level of that. But at the end of the day, it is the homeowner who suffers. And the homeowner has probably only bought enough insurance to get the mortgage that they're looking for on the house. .  

[00:30:13] It's not like we all have tons of cash available around our houses to insure them well. So what you're left with, if you don't have homeowner's insurance, you don't have flood insurance, and you've got a catastrophe on your hands, is the help that the federal government will provide. And that aid from FEMA is capped at $72,000. But the aid to repair the home is limited to less than $40,000 because FEMA is not supposed to rebuild homes. It's supposed to get you through temporary housing or making the damage inhabitable again. Most people get less than $10,000 from FEMA, and it takes a long time. And it's very frustrating if you talk to people-- like you said, Sarah-- who've been through this process, it's a full time job. Congress can award more money to the Department of Housing and Urban Development for disaster recovery grants, but getting that done requires the strength of your congressional delegation for Congress to say, yes, this disaster qualifies for that. And that also is very time consuming. It can take years for money to get to homeowners through those programs.  

Sarah [00:31:23] Well, and how many times are we going to do this before saying this is not a sustainable model to help people? I mean, I think you saw it post Hurricane Katrina. You saw people moving to Houston and entire neighborhoods being built in Houston to help people who did not have any resources to recover, much less stay in New Orleans post-hurricane. And so I don't know. It feels to me that the undercurrent is the problem we always have, which is Americans have a very individualistic mindset. And individualism is not going to get us through climate change. It's just not. We have such a messed up even conversation around insurance. When somebody comes to your door and knocks on it and says can I inspect it and file an insurance claim for you? And I don't think this is a character flaw. I just think so few people are going to think, well, what is that going to do to everybody's premiums?  It's like we just don't have this understanding that we are in this together, this affects everybody. Even your decision where to live, it affects our resources. We are tied up in this together and we are going to have to have hard conversations as the federal government continues to step in post natural disaster in a way that does not seem sustainable to me. It really, really doesn't. And I think Florida in some ways is an extreme example, and in some ways is just an example of the decisions and the calculus that we're going to have to make all over the country as our weather gets more extreme.  

Beth [00:33:02] I think all insurance just has this Goldilocks problem. What is the right level at which to administer it? Because you want the biggest risk pool that you can, like, all kinds of people who don't need it putting money in. But then you want the service to be done in a very personal, quick way.  I saw someone, an insurance expert, talking about how with insurance you want it to be affordable, available, and reliable. Well, right now, none of those are true in Florida. It's really hard. There are just very few companies writing new policies at all in Florida, which is going to make it really hard for people to buy homes and get mortgages. That is a huge problem. One of our friends that we were talking with about this said since I moved into my house, my homeowner's insurance has gone up four times in a very short period of time. So not available, not affordable, not reliable. Just this year, six insurance firms have become insolvent. One on the same day that Ian formed as a tropical storm. A court recently found that FedNat insurance company was going to have to liquidate. It just canceled 56,000 policies. Not reliable. Not affordable. Not available. Not reliable. And so the state becomes a fallback. Florida does have a state insurance program. It was set up in 2002. And this to me is where a lot of this could be going, and it provokes as many questions as it answers.  

Sarah [00:34:29] Yeah, this is supposed to be this insurance of last resort. So it is clearly not an insurance of last resort because everybody is using it. It also has like 20,000 pending lawsuits, I think, or some bananas number. So, yeah, I think there are nothing but hard questions here. Just nothing but hard questions. It does feel like, in some ways, this is one of the last places where extremism has not come to play. You see Governor DeSantis saying now is not the time to be petty. Happily welcoming the federal government and all its help. And so we're going to need some real centrist solutions, some real just good old fashioned governance coming to play here if we're going to find a better solution for anybody.  

Beth [00:35:11] And to everyone who is navigating the process of trying to get claims paid from insurers or getting money from FEMA, wherever you are in this, if you are dealing with this directly today, we are thinking about you. And we go back to what we said at the beginning, that people matter more than the things always. And so if you lost someone, we're thinking of you as well. We always end with talking about what's on our minds Outside of Politics. So we will take a quick break and tell you about our trip to Oklahoma City. Sarah, we loved Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. I had no idea what a gem this city could be.  

Sarah [00:35:55] Listen, I've been hearing about Oklahoma City. I had a friend go and she was, like, it was so great. She loved it, loved the botanical garden, loved the food. And she came back just going on and on about what a great time she had. So I was really looking forward to our trip back in 2020 and so I could not wait to get there this time. We had the most incredible schedule. We got personal tours of the Oklahoma City Bombing Memorial. We got personal tours of the brand new first American Museum. And of course-- if you follow us on Instagram-- the zoo. I mean, the Oklahoma City Zoo, I think their tagline should be 'Adorable torture'. They have so many babies and baby animals that you cannot squeeze and love on. Is it's own particular form of adorable torture. They have a baby tiger cubs named Bob. What? I love it so much. And we got to meet baby Rama the Elephant, which they did not let me take home with me. We had such a good time.  

Beth [00:36:55] We did. And everyone was just generous and kind. Everyone thanked us for coming to Oklahoma City. We're like thank you for bringing us over there. You could tell that people just have taken a lot of pride in that city and really want anyone who comes there to have a great experience. The food was fantastic. The botanical garden was beautiful. It's a well-designed city full of kind people. And we got to see much of the best of it. In just four days. We moved. There was not any downtime in this schedule. We were busy, busy. But it was really wonderful. And I loved being at O triple C, Oklahoma City's Community College. I think community colleges are really inspiring places. You get to meet such an interesting collection of students. We had nontraditional students, we had high school students, it was just fabulous to get to spend time with everyone.  

Sarah [00:37:47] We also spoke for the Oklahoma City Junior League. We call it Charity League in Paducah. But I have a real special place in my heart for junior leagues across the country. This one was very impressive. I came back with some ideas for our own charity league. It was incredible. The women organizing the event and welcoming us. We had listeners come to both the Oklahoma Community College event and the Junior League event, which was so kind and so exciting to see all in person. That's why we love being on the road. And what's really incredible is when we go, it just takes this place. Listen, Oklahoma's politics, I think, can be described as extreme.  

Beth [00:38:27] I'm reading I Alone Can Fix It about the Trump years from the Washington Post reporters, and I got to the part yesterday where he was wanting to have a rally again. This is in the middle of the campaign with Biden and coronavirus is raging and he's so frustrated that he can't go on the road. And so he asked Mike Pence, what state could I have an indoor rally in with no problem? And Mike Pence didn't hesitate; he was, like, Oklahoma. And they made it happen.  

Sarah [00:38:55] Oh, my goodness. So you hear those stories, you hear about the abortion bills, and states with more extreme legislators can become sort of a caricature in your mind. And that's why we value going on the road and meeting y'all in person so much, because you can't do that. You can't do that when you meet the people of Oklahoma. You can't do that when you have dinner with Kerry Hicks. You just can't do that anymore. And I think it's really, really, important to remember that. I'll never forget a message a listener sent us from Texas when Brandi Carlile came. She said, "I thought she wouldn't come." And this makes me cry. Brandi Carlile stood up and said, "I know you're more than your politics." And I just think that's so important to remember is that a place is more than it's politics. And Oklahoma City showed us that. They showed up and they showed out.  

Beth [00:39:49] That's right. And so we are so grateful to Shana at O triple C for bringing us in to speak, to Sheena for inviting us to be in front of the Junior League, for Representative Trish Ranson who organized the most incredible tour for us. Mandy at the Oklahoma City Zoo, which unquestionably was Sarah's favorite part of the whole trip. That adorable part is what she's here for.  

Sarah [00:40:10] I do love people. But, again, it's just the babies. There were just many babies.  

Beth [00:40:16] Yeah. And everyone else here was so kind to us. We would love to have this kind of experience in your hometown. The more dimension that we see across the country, the better our work here at Pantsuit Politics can be. And we hope that we do good work when we spend that time with you. We got such a nice comment this morning from the O triple C SGA from Brandon. He said, "You both are so incredible. You gave O triple C students an experience we've never had before and we're so grateful for it." So if you would like to talk to us about coming to spend time with you in person, just email Alise, our managing director, at Hello@pantsuitpolitics.com for more details. We look forward to being back with you on Friday with special guest Kristin Du Mez, the author of Jesus and John Wayne. Until then, have the best week available to you.  

[00:41:01] [Music plays out: When you're wrong, Brandy Carlile]  

Beth [00:41:25] Pantsuit Politics is produced by Studio Podcast Production. Alise Napp is our managing director.  

Sarah [00:41:30] Maggie Penton is our community engagement manager. Dante Lima is the composer and performer of our theme music.  

Beth [00:41:36] Our show is listener-supported. Special thanks to our executive producers.  

Executive Producers (Read their own names) [00:41:41] Martha Bronitsky. Linda Daniel. Allie Edwards. Janice Elliott. Sarah Greenup. Julie Haller. Helen Handley. Tiffany Hasler. Emily Holliday. Katie Johnson. Katina Zugenalis Kasling. Barry Kaufman. Molly Kohrs. The Kriebs. Laurie LaDow. Lilly McClure. Emily Neesley. Tawni Peterson. Tracy Puthoff. Sarah Ralph. Jeremy Sequoia. Katie Stigers. Karen True. Onica Ulveling. Nick and Alysa Villeli. Katherine Vollmer. Amy Whited.  

Beth [00:42:17] Jeff Davis. Melinda Johnston. Ashley Thompson. Michelle Wood. Joshua Allen. Morgan McCue. Nicole Berklas. Paula Bremer and Tim Miller.  

Maggie PentonComment