> Yep, an alternative model enabled by technology is mutual / cooperative insurance in which the policyholders not only own the company but also govern the rele

> Yep, an alternative model enabled by technology is mutual / cooperative insurance in which the policyholders not only own the company but also govern the release of funds. This way incentives are aligned - the insured want the insurance to act fairly, even with respect to others That doesn't really align incentives, though. There's really no benefit to each individual to approving another person's claim (all it means is less money in the pot). Claims are rare enough that it's not enough to simply say 'if you vote this way for someone else, we'll apply the policy consistently for you', since the expected number of claims that a person is likely to file over the course of their plan is close to zero. (And even if it weren't, the whole issue is that insurance has relatively well-written rules for clear-cut cases, but the complaints people have - like this one - are generally about the interpretation of those policies for special cases, since policies can't possibly enumerate every possible outcome.)