Every choice we make affects others, good and bad. Whether we choose to live in a flood plain, a mountain top, a swamp, a prairie or anywhere in-between. What about the folks who build their homes in deserts, they contribute to the lowering of the water table which negatively affects society and could result in higher risk of drought, availability of water for fire suppression, etc. Should they be allowed to continue to build? Why should I have to pay for their bad choices?

Attempting to limit the impact on society to only seemingly bad choices makes for good political talking points but is intellectually dishonest. Why not balance the supposedly bad impact on society with the good that the person who builds their home in a flood plain brings to society? It's just as valid an argument.

The entire premise of insurance is shared risk, paying out on claims is part of that process, whether the policy holder makes good choices or bad is also part of that process and is reflected in his or hers' premium cost.

John E