3 ms·
Wrong analogy - Not a valid argument for government health insurance. There may be other justifications but this is not one. If this were really true we would a
by spikels 14y ago
Wrong analogy - Not a valid argument for government health insurance. There may be other justifications but this is not one. If this were really true we would already have government provided health insurance everywhere because private insurers would have gone bankrupt long ago.
Flood insurance is fundamentally different from health insurance because floods cause large losses for large numbers of people at the same time (i.e. highly correlated incidence of losses). This means the insurer or insurers would have to make a huge payout in the event of a flood. If this payout is greater than all their resources, then everyone can't fully rebuild their home.
Most people can't afford to rebuild their home if it is destroyed because they do not have the resources. Similarly private insurers simply can't afford to rebuild everyone's home at the same time. And while some insurers might be willing to take the risk any responsible regulator should stop them.
Governments are often the only entities with the enormous resources to make these huge payouts. Therefore we have an vaild argument for the government providing flood or earthquake insurance.
Health issuance is entirely different because large health expenses do not occur to large numbers of people at the same time. Health insures are not going bankrupt because of flu epidemics. Instead they set their rates to cover these predictable payouts as well as generate a profit.
Unlike rebuilding an entire home most health expenses are affordable by most patients. It is only occasionally that the required treatment is so expensive that we need a third party to pay for it. In some countries this is done by private insurers and providers and in some it is done by governments.
While this is not a good argument for government health insurance there are many. Unfortunately this is a very complex area requiring expertise in many areas: insurance, economics, regulation, politics... and perhaps even software development.