Our Sponsors
____________________
Note: Comments are moderated so be sure that your responses are expressed in a respectable and friendly way. We are here to express our thoughts toward controversial issues, not to scold or defame anyone. Watch what you say, and remember that by using this site, you agree to our Terms Of Use and Privacy Policy.
No way. We'd all be doomed then.
What would "public" insurance be? Insured by government?
If you want to see what that would be like, just take a look at the VA, or the unholy mess that medicare is in. Or FDIC.
Remember this one little important absolute fact . . . before government can give you anything, it has to take somethiong from someone else! (government does not earn revenue, it TAKES IT!
Citizen: "But I don't need hurricane insurance, I live in Montana."
Politician: "But what about your fellow Americans in Florida? You have an obligation to contribute to the national public hurricane insurance pool. Otherwise what will happen if they're hit by a storm, a storm that may I remind you, cannot be predicted or controlled in any meaningful way? Their house might be destroyed and then they're homeless because the nation public hurricane insurance pool isn't well funded enough to rebuild it."
Citizen: "So why don't they get their own insurance?"
Politician: "But not everyone can afford the insurance. Your contributions help to keep rates down so that everyone can have adequate coverage."
Citizen: "But I don't need hurricane coverage!"
Politician: "But think about your hail insurance. If you contribute to their hurricane insurance and they contribute to your hail insurance then we're all taking care of each other. See how it works?"
Citizen: "But doesn't that remove disincentives from developing in areas that are prone to natural disasters? The government already provides free flood coverage for people who build in places that are likely to be flooded so insurance companies won't cover them. So the system actually encourages people to build in flood zones. Shouldn't a system have at least some incentive to encourage people to think ahead and encourage development in comparatively safe areas?"
Politician: "But we can do that. We'll pass laws so that those who live in flood prone areas have to pay more, so that we can have the strengths of both competition and cooperation."
Citizen: "But doesn't the market already do risk adjusted pricing? How will government run insurance save us money if you are going to have the same overhead costs of calculating risk? And how will you know which method for calculating risk is the most accurate without competition? You'll have a monopoly. Also, you say that you'll adjust prices based on risk, but politicians are elected based on votes. What's to stop politicians from cutting deals so that more sparsely populated areas like Montana end up paying more than their fair share because they have less political pull?"
Politician: "And this is why we need the government, to force selfish unenlightened people like you to contribute your fair share."