npub1gk…msz86 on Nostr: npub1lnmwn…d624t I imagine insurers would work on stronger actuarial tables, and ...
npub1lnmwn6lz822geh8h0uu483j5eewmrm3vadw89rx9258qq59ega7sqd624t (npub1lnm…624t)
I imagine insurers would work on stronger actuarial tables, and might force things like annual mental health assessments, better gun storage, etc. as conditions of (cheaper premiums for) coverage. Those would all be good side effects that conservative courts might not strike down. Overall, though, it still comes down to, if the the rate per-owner of claimable incidents is low enough that you won't magically have a cost basis that prevents carriers from undercutting each other.
Overall, if insurance premiums are too expensive, you'll simply have people owning at-risk, much like they do for other coverage types. I also suspect the same courts reluctant to place explicit limits on gun ownership are unlikely to uphold implicit limits that take the form of compulsory insurance legislation.
I imagine insurers would work on stronger actuarial tables, and might force things like annual mental health assessments, better gun storage, etc. as conditions of (cheaper premiums for) coverage. Those would all be good side effects that conservative courts might not strike down. Overall, though, it still comes down to, if the the rate per-owner of claimable incidents is low enough that you won't magically have a cost basis that prevents carriers from undercutting each other.
Overall, if insurance premiums are too expensive, you'll simply have people owning at-risk, much like they do for other coverage types. I also suspect the same courts reluctant to place explicit limits on gun ownership are unlikely to uphold implicit limits that take the form of compulsory insurance legislation.