Matthias wrote:In the case of insurance, however, I see no reason not to involve government since insurance is, by its nature, privatized socialism and all you do when you make it a private market is to increase transaction costs.
Not really. Generally speaking its elective with a good degree of optionality and competition, both of which are currently constrained by govt regulation by things like border restrictions and minimum policy requirements. Inviting the govt into a major role will introduce rationing, pricing inefficiencies, and very likely redistributive policies.
Generally it's constrained because insurance companies are dirty cheats. There's entire doctrines of law dedicated to bad faith denials for insurance companies who decided that, even though the claim was valid, it was better to enter litigation than live up to their contract and hope to pay less.
0-3 to 4-3. Worst choke in the history of baseball. Enough said.
Matthias wrote:In the case of insurance, however, I see no reason not to involve government since insurance is, by its nature, privatized socialism and all you do when you make it a private market is to increase transaction costs.
Not really. Generally speaking its elective with a good degree of optionality and competition, both of which are currently constrained by govt regulation by things like border restrictions and minimum policy requirements. Inviting the govt into a major role will introduce rationing, pricing inefficiencies, and very likely redistributive policies.
Generally it's constrained because insurance companies are dirty cheats. There's entire doctrines of law dedicated to bad faith denials for insurance companies who decided that, even though the claim was valid, it was better to enter litigation than live up to their contract and hope to pay less.
That's certainly an issue, but i don;t see why that can't handled through appropriate oversight rather than guaranteeing the negative effects of a socialized system.