Are Government and Insurance Too Closely Entangled?

Theoretically, if I happened to control 10% or more of the world's wealth, I would likely buy just about every sort of insurance possible and I would think that investment was well worth the cost considering what I would stand to lose without insurance. The dull reality is that I control very, very little of the world's wealth right now, and so I tend to think of insurance as being a costly and recurring expense as much as a necessary protection. While the fact that many Americans do not have health insurance is a major issue, another group of Americans is often forgotten, namely those who have insurance they would rather not carry. In many US states, to have some sort of auto insurance is a legal requirement for vehicle owners. The practical side of this requirement may seem beneficial; certainly, no sane person would want to be involved in a car accident with someone who is not insured, so it might seem like the more people who are insured the better things are for everyone. Undoubtedly many people with limited budgets would be extremely tempted to do without insurance if they were not concerned with the legal ramifications of that decision; to be honest, I'm in that category myself right now. However, the nature of the government requirements are unusual in that they have essentially placed state governments in the position of advocating for private insurance companies. If I were required to buy a certain amount of clothing every month, I would be incensed because I only wish to buy clothing when I need it. I would feel it a violation of my freedom to be forced to give my money to a clothing company each month. Because I am used to having to have car insurance, I don't think much about the laws which theoretically compel auto insurance upon every vehicle owner in my state, but this does not make the situation any less strange.

As it happens, there is a chance the relationship between insurance and government could get even cozier. Oftentimes the health care debate is presented in terms of health insurance rather than access to health care. The important thing, some argue, is that every American should have health insurance -- then they will have access to health care when they need it. That is true, undoubtedly, but if health care was simply free then there would be no need for health insurance to cover the bills that would no longer exist. Universal health care is a sort of double-edged sword for insurance companies; it could eliminate them almost overnight or subsidize them for generations. I suppose it's also possible it might help or hurt them in less dramatic ways, but those aren't as fun to talk about. Anyway, the fate of health insurance will all depend on which universal health care plan, if any, is ultimately adopted in the United States. I, for one, would not be shocked if the "solution" to the health care problem ends up benefiting the insurance industry as much, if not more, than the people being protected -- one way to universal health care coverage, after all, is to simply make health insurance compulsory like auto insurance generally is. With single-payer advocate Dennis Kucinich languishing towards the bottom of most polls, it seems likely that government and insurance will become only more closely entangled in the coming years -- it is much harder to decide if this relationship between the public and private sectors is too close for comfort or necessary for the good of the nation.