Comment by drbscl
1 day ago
> They could just buy insurance. > the police get sued all the time anyways. It's just that the burden currently falls on the taxpayers.
I fail to see how this would change anything other than increasing taxpayer costs further in the form of insurance profit margin.
Malpractice insurance might increase the cost of policing, but I'd wager the malpractice itself is costing tax payers even more.
I'm not necessarily opposed to requiring something like malpractice insurance for being a cop, but I'm genuinely not sure how that would affect the cost of policing compared to the status quo (and I'd be skeptical of any research attempt to estimate it without actually trying it). But I'm also not necessarily opposed to spending more taxpayer money on policing in return for better policing.
Make the police officer like the Doctor pay for their own insurance.
The doctor's own fees just rise. You, the patient pays for it. There's this 10-20% of revenue parasite on the entire industry, and you're paying that while complaining that prices are too high.
Now you'll do the same thing with police, as if police wages and salaries won't increase proportionally, but 20 years from now you'll wonder why that costs so much. It's bizarre how economically imperceptive everyone is.
No, the people who can't afford their insurance wouldn't be able to work as policemen. Ideally, they would also eventually lose a license of some sort-- just like the doctors who commit malpractice.
We are already paying increased taxes to deal with all the lawsuits we already incur because these people know they are above the law and they think it isn't their problem.
2 replies →
Change the incentives, you change the behaviour. Granted, this might have lots of unintended consequences, many of them bad.