Frequent readers know that one of my favorite hobby horses
is to defend government solutions to social problems against the absurd claims
that the free market will solve all problems better than the government.
Most of the facts are in my favor: our wars have become
disasters since we started to depend on mercenaries and privately run prisons
are a shameful shambles. Social Security
faces a manageable short-term financing problem because the ratio of workers to
retirees will fall for a few decades; all that’s required is a quick fix or
two. Compare the minor Social Security financing challenge to all the private
pension plans that have gone belly up over the past 10 years or to the collective
401K plans of the American public. The public Social Security is on much firmer
ground than private retirement solutions, which study after study concludes are
severely underfunded.
Having now given one more screed in favor of government
solutions, I must admit that the private sector may succeed where government
has failed in one instance: in fighting the absurd idea that the way to make
our streets safer is for more people to carry guns.
Since the Newtown massacre, the National Rifle Association (NRA)
has been campaigning to bring firearms into school. As usual, politicians of
both parties have lined up to give the NRA what it wants: As the New York Times reported, seven
states have recently enacted laws permitting teachers and administrators to
carry guns in schools.
But it’s doubtful that any teachers are going to be carrying
guns to class in any of the seven states.
The insurance companies won’t let them. For example, the Times reports that the insurance company
that covers 90% of all the school districts in Kansas has told its agent to
decline coverage to any school district that permits employees to carry
concealed handguns. In Oregon, the association that manages liability insurance
for virtually all the school districts will charge an extra $2,500 premium per
year for every staff member carrying a weapon on the job.
The Times article
does mention school districts that permit teachers to carry and have been able
to get insurance, but for some odd reason the writer is not able to name any of
the insurance companies providing the coverage to these gun-toting districts.
Insurance companies are often at the forefront of increasing
safety, because improved safety leads to a decline in accidents, which in turn
leads to fewer claims, which then leads to some combination of lower premiums.
I have seen a number of businesses of all sizes improve safety protocols and
policies at the insistence of the insurance company. When insurance companies
walk away from business, it can affect the economy of a region, for example, in
a flood zone. And despite the bad rap they get, health insurers have been at
the forefront of preventive medicine, because it leads to healthier patients,
which again, lowers claims.
The problem that our elected officials have is that they
want to believe that wishing makes it so. Many legislators and their financial backers
wish that we could prove a divine hand created us or that global warming is not
taking place or that lowering taxes on the wealthy creates jobs. All nonsense! In
the same way, these benighted and corrupt legislators join the NRA in wishing
that arming America to the teeth will make us a safer land. Lots of studies
suggest otherwise. In fact, most studies
demonstrate that the more guns in a population, the more people will be injured
or killed by guns.
Insurance companies do a good job of reducing all risk to money, including the risk of death and injury. When the insurance companies raise rates on school districts that permit gun-toting teachers, it’s because they know that they will have to pay out more claims because of death and injury. They’ve run all the numbers and they know that more guns in a workplace will cost them money. Somebody is going to have to pay—some with higher premiums, some with their lives.
No comments:
Post a Comment