In principle requiring insurance is good. People are generally not great at allocating money to pay for freak disasters and the amount of money required to fix them is not evenly distributed. In many cases not having insurance means people going homeless or carless over expensive (but relatively minor in the grand scheme) accidents. Not to mention life insurance and paying out expenses for accidents where it's your fault but you wouldn't have enough money to pay.
It's essentially a tax run by privatized companies that ensure a safety net for everyone. The issue is that the companies are perversely incentives to make a profit and deny the very claim you signed up for insurance for.
In principle requiring insurance is good. People are generally not great at allocating money to pay for freak disasters and the amount of money required to fix them is not evenly distributed. In many cases not having insurance means people going homeless or carless over expensive (but relatively minor in the grand scheme) accidents. Not to mention life insurance and paying out expenses for accidents where it's your fault but you wouldn't have enough money to pay.
It's essentially a tax run by privatized companies that ensure a safety net for everyone. The issue is that the companies are perversely incentives to make a profit and deny the very claim you signed up for insurance for.
You can regulate the industry to be fair.
The problem isn't the insurance, the problem is that the insurance chas bought the regulators.