- the government may be taking a paternalistic view.
- the government may also be worried that, if citizens do not have sufficient life cover, then they will need to provide financial support. Or if the cover becomes more expensive, some people will be left uninsurered.
-
Any suffering caused by (wildfire) will create public demand for something to be done.
The government may need to step in and provide financial assistance.
Hence there will be consequences in terms of government spending and possibly higher taxes/borrowing.
Failure of the government to act (or seen to be acting) will create bad publicity and will lead to a loss of popularity. - the government may want a successful insurance industry as a source of taxes … and jobs for its citizenss
-
Is it fair?
For fairness we need to consider that people who believe they were promised care are now being
denied it. Any change may therefore be unpopular and the government risks being voted out.
e.g. it is considered unfair to cut off the benefit for someone older than 65 and have no income. - If the funding of a cost is problematic