4 ms·
>Breaking it down: if the US gov (or its subdivisions) believes the risk is "gouging" or "egregious" or "too expensive" and prohibits rate increases, You worde
by Dalewyn 2y ago
>Breaking it down: if the US gov (or its subdivisions) believes the risk is "gouging" or "egregious" or "too expensive" and prohibits rate increases,
You worded the original query badly then.
I read it like follows:
What if the US gov:
* doesn't recognize the risk and
* allow insurers to raise rates
Hence my confusion: Why is it bad for the US government to let insurers raise rates?
EDIT: Copypasta fail. :V
- mgh95 2y ago> Hence my confusion: Why is it bad for the US government to let insurers raise rates? Because of a very, very, bad decision to make the California (and I really should have written California gov, not US gov) an elected position. And people like voting for the guy who prevents prices from going up.
- Dalewyn 2y agoLook: You're arguing that the US goverment preventing insurers from raising rates is a bad thing. I completely agree. You however worded the original query in such a way that I read it as the US government allowing insurers to raise rates is a bad thing. That's why I was confused. All I advise is you choose your wording a bit more carefully in the future.