If insurance companies were required to set up a claim fund in each state for the catastrophic claims.

After a few years without any re-insurance and a law required to keep the funds from being touched for any other reason. We could all see the benefit of lower premiums and a guarantee fund to cover the large losses. The problem is keeping the greedy hands out of the fund. Even a 2% of all premium collected will work after a few years. We already pay a tax with the insurance. It is just wasted in the political general fund.

People don't understand how insurance works and base their sole opinion on premiums alone.  Insurance is a transfer of risk.  Your taking a chance of loss and for a premium you transfer the risk to a company or an insurance pool.  Without this risk transfer most people wouldn't be able to own the home they have because the bank would charge so much for the loan risk. Our economy needs strong financial insurance companies to help make the economy go "round".  The insurance company has cost just like any other company and they have to increase rates to operate the company.  Most companies invest premiums in fixed bonds and bonds that used to pay 5% and 6% now pay 2% and 3%.  Couple this with bad weather and rising claim count the companies have to increase premiums as well as manage company cost.  Because your part of an insurance company that has had these experiences your premiums will rise regardless if you have had a claim or not because the insurance commissioner in your state won't allow the company to discriminate on how they increase their premiums.  If you think home insurance premiums are on the rise just wait until 2014 and the Affordable Care Act kicks in.  Plan on your health insurance premiums doubling or tripling and you will find your self giving up coverage and self insuring more and more.  My take!

As far as escalating insurance rates go, my guess is the insurance companies spread recent disaster claims among all of their clients even though most areas did not experience disasters.  Take into account, hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, heavy snow, tornadoes, high wind damage, etc.  These events amount to billions of dollars.  I suspect insurance companies spread their costs to ALL CLIENTS regardless of those clients having no claims for such disasters.  Yes, the insurance companies raise rates on those who made claims, but that rise does not cover all of an insurance company's expense outlays. 

I fault insurance companies for not taking clients to task for insistence on owning property in high-disaster areas.  As an example, beachfront properties are high risk for damaging hurricanes, yet the client rebuilds over and over. Is it really fair that other clients collectively foot the bill, by increased rates and through no fault of their own? 

Rebel_okie: do you live where your user name implies? If so, maybe I should consider moving there. I grew up knowing that you didn't go where you weren't supposed to...if you did - and you got hurt - it was your tough luck. And very few people did.  Now days, if you break the law, the law defends you, rewards you, and cracks down on the poor turkey who does obey the law.

     I say, let's turn back the clock: let's educate these younger generations: if you trespass on my property and my dog bites you, tough luck, stay out - nobody invited you. But do let me know so I can have my dog checked in case you gave it something.

     If they break into a house and fall over something and get hurt...no, they can't sue...if they didn't break in where they had no business, they couldn't- wouldn't - have got hurt. Go blow it out their -

     If they break in and get their * blown away, so? Save taxpayers thousands of dollars every year. And no worries about repeat offenders.

     If people knew they would be putting their lives on the line because they're too sorry and lazy to work...really! Would you try to break into a house that was guarded by dogs and Smith & Wesson if you knew they could, and would, kill you and there would be no jury to award you millions? If so, you're too stupid to live and breed. You'd probably have just as stupid off-spring.

     Are they trying to say that banks and businesses should just pile their money out in the middle of the floor instead of vaults and safes and then leave their doors unlocked? Might as well, after all, the poor robbers might hurt themselves while trying to break in.

    Where do we draw the line? Can we demand a large area of the country to be designated as the "No -more-victims-punish​ment-zone", where it's the one who breaks the law that is punished, not the victim?  Where the liberal, bleeding-hearts do not prevail. Where people give a d* more about an innocent, unborn baby than a convicted killer who is 100% guilty (beyond a shadow of a doubt), one that has tortured and killed people and there is real proof.  Why is it ok to murder babies who have done nothing but not to put down vicious grown people who chose to deliberately inflict harm?

     A place where men and women go back to taking responsibility for their actions, for their bodies?

    A place where single women, and old people, can feel safe because they can have a dog to protect them and where they know that if someone breaks into their home they are able to defend themselves without worrying about going to jail themselves.