[Freedom4US]

You'd think, but the government has the habit of getting involved. Usually some politician in a given state will make a stink about some perceived inequity, ram-rodding legislation through to right said perceived inequity. Warm and fuzzies to all involved, everything is sweetness and light. In the past similar stunts along these lines has caused companies to pull completely out of certain states. "If that's the deal, we'll just leave, no thanks."

The government's answer to this angle is to *force* insurance companies to provide coverage (at reduced rates) to those who wouldn't get written in the first place.

[HangnJudge]

The government's answer to this angle is to *force* insurance companies to provide coverage (at reduced rates) to those who wouldn't get written in the first place.

The introduction of regulation into an efficient capitalist system will inevitably raise the total cost of operation to the consumer. This however assumes that the market is "efficient" and as such the consumer has free access to all needed information as to the overall cost / worth of the product. If trade secrets are being employed, then their presence should be made known, but not regulated. The consumer can, in an efficient market, then decide on it's own how to correct for information purposely held not in evidence; adjusting as it sees fit to deal with trade secret practices. Competitors, not employing secrets, can advertise this fact as a value-added feature to their product.