Some of these harms seem of a sort that does not really feel compensable with money. While romantic partner’s defection might create some out-of-pocket costs, but I don’t think the knowledge that I’d get some money out of my wife defecting would make me feel any better about the possibility!
Also, I’d note that some of the harms are already covered by social insurance schemes to a large extent. For instance, although parents certainly face a lot of costs associated with “[h]aving children with severe disabilities / issues,” a high percentage of costs in the highest-cost scenarios are already borne by the public (e.g., Medicaid, Social Security/SSI, the special education system, etc.) or by existing insurers (e.g., employer-provided health insurance). So I’d want to think more about the relative merits of novel private-sector insurance schemes versus strengthening the socialized schemes.
While romantic partner’s defection might create some out-of-pocket costs, but I don’t think the knowledge that I’d get some money out of my wife defecting would make me feel any better about the possibility
Consider this, as examples of where it might be important: 1. You are financially dependent on your spouse. If they cheated on you, you would likely want to leave them, but you wouldn’t want to be trapped due to finances. 2. You’re nervous about the potential expenses of a divorce.
I think that this situation is probably a poor fit for insurance at this point, just because of moral risks that would happen, but perhaps one day it might be viable to some extent.
> So I’d want to think more about the relative merits of novel private-sector insurance schemes versus strengthening the socialized schemes.
I’m all for improvements on socialized schemes too. No reason not for both strategies to be tested and used. In theory, insurance could be much easier and faster to be implemented. It can take ages for nation-wide reform to happen.
Some of these harms seem of a sort that does not really feel compensable with money. While romantic partner’s defection might create some out-of-pocket costs, but I don’t think the knowledge that I’d get some money out of my wife defecting would make me feel any better about the possibility!
Also, I’d note that some of the harms are already covered by social insurance schemes to a large extent. For instance, although parents certainly face a lot of costs associated with “[h]aving children with severe disabilities / issues,” a high percentage of costs in the highest-cost scenarios are already borne by the public (e.g., Medicaid, Social Security/SSI, the special education system, etc.) or by existing insurers (e.g., employer-provided health insurance). So I’d want to think more about the relative merits of novel private-sector insurance schemes versus strengthening the socialized schemes.
Consider this, as examples of where it might be important:
1. You are financially dependent on your spouse. If they cheated on you, you would likely want to leave them, but you wouldn’t want to be trapped due to finances.
2. You’re nervous about the potential expenses of a divorce.
I think that this situation is probably a poor fit for insurance at this point, just because of moral risks that would happen, but perhaps one day it might be viable to some extent.
> So I’d want to think more about the relative merits of novel private-sector insurance schemes versus strengthening the socialized schemes.
I’m all for improvements on socialized schemes too. No reason not for both strategies to be tested and used. In theory, insurance could be much easier and faster to be implemented. It can take ages for nation-wide reform to happen.