&gt; Yep, an alternative model enabled by technology is mutual &#x2F; cooperative insurance in which the policyholders not only own the company but also govern the release of funds. This way incentives are aligned - the insured want the insurance to act fairly, even with respect to others<p>That doesn&#x27;t really align incentives, though. There&#x27;s really no benefit to each individual to approving another person&#x27;s claim (all it means is less money in the pot).<p>Claims are rare enough that it&#x27;s not enough to simply say &#x27;if you vote this way for someone else, we&#x27;ll apply the policy consistently for you&#x27;, since the expected number of claims that a person is likely to file over the course of their plan is close to zero.<p>(And even if it weren&#x27;t, the whole issue is that insurance has relatively well-written rules for clear-cut cases, but the complaints people have - like this one - are generally about the interpretation of those policies for special cases, since policies can&#x27;t possibly enumerate every possible outcome.)