One thing I don’t get. People are making a few claims: 1) anything beyond 250k is a known risk, you should’ve spread the money around. 2) why should tax payer

One thing I don’t get. People are making a few claims: 1) anything beyond 250k is a known risk, you should’ve spread the money around. 2) why should tax payers be on the hook for more than the 250k amount? The companies took the risk and lost. But if everyone spread their money around and kept each account less than 250k. Then in effect isn’t everyone insured for everything anyways? Imagine there is a service that seamlessly took your total amount and spread it between various accounts for you to keep each account balance less than 250k. Now the totality of bank deposits are in effect all 100% insured. How is this now different from insuring all deposits regardless of size besides adding a middleman?