• No_Ones_Slick_Like_Gaston@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Not sure Rick when one can insure a hole in one is just a business decision.

        But I get it health housing and catastrophic losses could be better monitored and regulated.

      • Swordgeek@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        I’d qualify that as for-profit mandatory insurance.

        Canpt get a mortgage without home insurance. Canpt drive a vehicle without at least liability. Those rates should be strictly government regulated to be sustainable and non-profit.

        But if you want to insure your collection if priceless Whitworth wrenches, well maybe I care a bit (Just a bit!) less about insurance gouging.

    • Bob
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      3 months ago

      I’d go further and ringfence all the basic needs so that you can’t profit from providing them, just make enough to live off if needs be.