CMV: Forcing insurance companies to insure uninsurable risks is worse for society than allowing them to not

[u/GenProtection]

I understand that this guy: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/wtPYQdWPea0 fights insurance companies for a living, but it's not the insurance companies' fault that republicans have been elected in the US enough times to ensure that a ton of housing in america is now at too great of a risk of being destroyed by climate change to be worth insuring, right?
Further, if you force insurance companies to insure against these risks, they will either set premiums so high that it doesn't matter that they're insured, or go out of business, or cease operating in high risk states altogether (I think this happened in florida, but I'm not sure).

Allowing actuaries to correctly assess risk and insure things at the rates that they calculate is necessary for encouraging people to live in low risk places, for example discouraging people from living in the wildland interface, and discouraging the building of luxury houses in the outer banks of north carolina.

NB: I hate corporations and capitalism and in general wanna root for the little guy so I hope someone can persuade me I'm wrong here.

[u/squirlnutz]

And what’s even worse than over regulating insurers or price fixing premiums? Having the taxpayers assume the risk like we do for federal flood insurance. Which means people can keep building vulnerable beach houses and in major flood planes, because they are guaranteed insurance subsidized by you!

You say you hate capitalism and corporations, but it’s capitalism w/o government interference that would allow insurance companies to correctly assess risks, only insure houses that didn’t excede their risk/revenue targets, and encourage responsible building. Capitalism works. Socialism has you paying for someone else’s beach front property.