Why is basic insurance for ordinary people a for-profit business at all, rather than something the collective (administered by the state) does to soften any misfortune that hits any of its members?
Because state insurance programs have perverse incentives. Insurance itself is a moral hazard. You buy insurance and then do something risky you wouldn't otherwise have done because if it goes wrong you're insured. It's also an opportunity for outright fraud. If the book value of your property is higher than its true value, you carry insurance and then set a fire.
Private insurers have the incentive to price this in. If they can predict you're going to be high risk, or uncover evidence of arson, they can charge you higher rates or refuse coverage. For state insurers the cost goes on the taxpayer and if claims are refused for legitimate reasons, the perpetrators go to the media and accuse the state of bankrupting their family. This puts pressure on elected officials to shift the burden of this fraud onto the taxpayer, whereas private insurers would push back because they have a direct financial incentive not to eat the cost of fraud and mispriced risk.
> Why is basic insurance for ordinary people a for-profit business at all, rather than something the collective...
There are mutual insurance companies [1], including the largest insurance company in the US (State Farm). At the end of every year, if the amount of money left over exceeds the formula they have set, every policyholder gets a refund.
Mathematically, if you sell insurance at break even, you're guaranteed to go bankrupt - on an infinite time scale, the "spike" of a random walk martingale (this last word means, it doesn't make a profit) will exceed every level, i.e. it will wipe out any amount of collateral / capital / equity the company might have.
Reinsurance isn’t magic. This helps with one-off losses, but if you’re fundamentally not able to make a profit, they’re not going to cover you, because all you’ve done is shift the negative expected value to them.
It also probably increases the odds of total ruin... think a Katrina or an Andrew but a bit worse. On a smaller scale, it's never gonna be just one car in a town with hail damage.
If you believe that in an infinite time scale the spike of a "random walk martingale" will exceed every level, then you also believe that you'll go bankrupt even if you don't sell insurance at break even. Maybe mathematically incorrect, but entirely irrelevant in the real world.
IN ADDITION, the money that insurers make isn't just the underwriting profit but also the investment profit. You you're talking twice as much shit as the average HN commenter.
You can prove mathematical propositions, you obviously can't make truthful conclusions about insurance. And that's really the crucial parts. Anyone can make prove mathematical statements.
Reminds of the guy who lost his keys in the darkness and was looking for the keys under the lamp because that's where he can see. Likewise, you're using your tools and hoping that the tools have some connection to real life.
You sound like one of those "that's all good in practice but it would never work in theory" type of people.
> you must also regulate the sort of vehicles ordinary people can buy and the sort of homes they can own.
Yep, we already do that. Vehicles and houses have to conform to a set of standards that provide security and safety measures for others, e.g. "Street legal" car restrictions, fire hazard safety requirements and building permit regulations and state codes that adhere to city guidelines, etc. Might need to include a few more talking points from the political pundit you're regurgitating views from for a better argument.
> If you do that, you must also regulate the sort of vehicles ordinary people can buy and the sort of homes they can own.
There are two provinces in Canada (British Columbia and Saskatchewan, since 1973 and 1945 respectively) who have a crown insurance corporation and require everyone purchase insurance through the government.
Even if the government ran the insurance program, you wouldn't be forced to charge everyone the same amount for their insurance. The Camaro driver could pay more for their coverage.
Very few people hate having insurance in case of accidents but a lot of people hate having guns stuck in their back and told to pay up for other people.
I pay a rate based on my risk factors which I actively work to maintain as low as possible. I don't want to be forced to pay for every reckless idiot in my country (of which there are too many to count).
But I also hate non-voluntary anything, so I'm weird.
And without exception the folks fixated on the notion they're paying the way for someone else fail to grasp, on the most fundamental level, the notion of a public good. There are days where I think it'd be amusing to suspend federal and state law in the Dakotas just to see how long it took before regional warlords took over.
Imagine a world where only the people like you can be insured. Everyone else, “of which there are too many to count,” has to go without insurance because they can’t get approved or the premiums are so insane they can’t afford it. Some of those people may take it to heart and change their behavior, but some will not.
Now imagine one of those uninsured people causes an accident, and you get seriously injured. You sue, but this person is broke as a joke, so you never manage to get anything meaningful back. In fact, you probably wouldn’t even be able to get a lawyer to take your case, since they know they wouldn’t even be able to collect enough to cover their fees. That’s why you “have to pay for every ridiculous idiot.” I suppose could round them all up and put them in camps, and then your premiums would be lower.
Or consider major medical insurance. Before the ACA, in the US, people with pre-existing conditions couldn’t get individual health insurance, or if they did, it was incredibly expensive. These people didn’t necessarily do anything wrong, but their healthcare costs were higher than any individual could reasonably afford. Did they not deserve healthcare?
