They are not wrong. Insurance with perfect info ceases to ne any form of a recognizable social good. In fact, it just becomes indistinguishable from a sanctioned form of populational segregation, instead of the pull-a-long stick-with-carrot through which risk is mitigated against long tail events through active propagation of best practices as a condition of coverage.
Insurance companies should be exposed to the same level of risk as anyone else, which includes having things boow up in your face if you mismanage your float.
Their comment didn’t add anything to the conversation, contrasted with yours I’m sure you can see the difference.
I agree with your commentary, my point was that they’re (insurance companies) unable to use the information they learn or newer predictive elements to help avoid the mismanagement.
Arbitrary decisions by these elected or appointed officials, as I have seen first-hand, ignoring the reality that if they aren’t able to off-set that risk it comes at great cost to the company first and their constituents later as a knock-on effect results in the only way to not have it “blow up in their face” by removing services.
So to your point, the lack of ability of control rates in a more reasonable fashion (I’m not pro no regulations btw) actually results in the same thing you’ve pointed out above - the ones who need the insurance the most can no longer get it or cannot get adequate coverage.
Insurance with perfect info would be an amazing social good. If they could say "you can build a house there, but it will burn down in a forest fire 15 years from now", we could make an informed decision on if we want to build that house.
That's not insurance then. The whole point of insurance is shared risk in circumstances where perfect information is not available but a reasonable calculation of risk for the cohort is.
Insurance companies should be exposed to the same level of risk as anyone else, which includes having things boow up in your face if you mismanage your float.