Freeman

ARTICLE

Will You Name the Car Crash After Us?

Insuring Planned Events Is Ludicrous

OCTOBER 01, 2001 by ROSS LEVATTER

Imagine the following dialog:

SMITH (interested in auto insurance): I’m looking for some good auto insurance coverage.

JONES (an auto insurance salesman): You’ve come to the right place.

SMITH: Would your insurance cover me if I had an auto crash?

JONES: Certainly our insurance covers auto accidents.

SMITH (blushing): Well, I must admit I had an auto accident once, but that was several years ago. I’m more mature now, and take precautions. Now, I only have planned auto crashes.

JONES: I’m sorry?

SMITH: Yes, I think auto crashes are too important to take lightly. I plan all of them carefully. No auto “accidents” for me. But of course I want insurance coverage.

JONES: You say you plan on having auto crashes in the future?

SMITH: Yes, at least two in the next five to ten years. Possibly three.

JONES: And you want us to insure you for them?

SMITH: You said you sold insurance, right?

JONES: Well, yes . . . but typically people insure to avoid large expenses from unexpected circumstances. If you’re planning to have auto crashes, why not just set aside a fund to pay for them?

SMITH: Well, that’s silly. If I did that, auto crashes would be more expensive for me. If I have insurance, I’ll be able to take advantage of group rates. As you know, some people don’t have any auto crashes. Some, I believe, even have autos but never drive, making crashes extremely unlikely (though why they’d have the equipment and never use it, I certainly don’t understand). I’ll be able to take advantage of their driving records in a group policy, lowering my costs.

JONES: And raising theirs . . .

SMITH: Well, they were the ones to decide not to have auto crashes. If they choose to have auto crashes in the future, your company will pay for them, too.

JONES: That just raises the cost of auto insurance for everyone.

SMITH: Well, if the government didn’t think your paying for my planned auto crashes was good public policy, they wouldn’t have mandated that planned auto crashes be covered by all auto insurance policies.

Everyone sees that Smith’s argument is just crazy—economically foolish and morally obtuse. Amazing that when you change “auto crash” to “pregnancy” and “auto insurance” to “health insurance,” everyone thinks it makes perfect sense.

ASSOCIATED ISSUE

October 2001

comments powered by Disqus

EMAIL UPDATES

* indicates required

CURRENT ISSUE

December 2014

Unfortunately, educating people about phenomena that are counterintuitive, not-so-easy to remember, and suggest our individual lack of human control (for starters) can seem like an uphill battle in the war of ideas. So we sally forth into a kind of wilderness, an economic fairyland. We are myth busters in a world where people crave myths more than reality. Why do they so readily embrace untruth? Primarily because the immediate costs of doing so are so low and the psychic benefits are so high.
Download Free PDF

PAST ISSUES

SUBSCRIBE

RENEW YOUR SUBSCRIPTION

Essential Works from FEE

Economics in One Lesson (full text)

By HENRY HAZLITT

The full text of Hazlitt's famed primer on economic principles: read this first!


By FREDERIC BASTIAT

Frederic Bastiat's timeless defense of liberty for all. Once read and understood, nothing ever looks the same.


By F. A. HAYEK

There can be little doubt that man owes some of his greatest suc­cesses in the past to the fact that he has not been able to control so­cial life.


By JEFFREY A. TUCKER

Leonard Read took the lessons of entrepreneurship with him when he started his ideological venture.


By LEONARD E. READ

No one knows how to make a pencil: Leonard Read's classic (Audio, HTML, and PDF)