system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Providing insurance, all insurance, is a service better suited for government bureaucracy rather than the private sector

Basically the title: here’s an example.

John buys a car. In John’s state it is illegal to operate it on public roadways without possessing valid insurance. John sends a form to the DMV and is approved for his specified insurance policy. John pays an additional $30 in taxes every month to the DMV. John now has auto coverage in case of an accident. The DMV takes John’s money and at the end of the year finds it there were significantly less car accidents and the DMV has a surplus. This surplus is returned proportionally to all policy holders. As of now this money is kept as profit for privatized companies. Under the new system the money is returned to the holders of the policy. So the DMV takes x amount of money, spends y amount of money on filling policies, paying agents and fraud officers, rent, overhead expenses and gives z left over money back to the policyholders in the fashion of x - y = z. Everybody pays in a little, everybody gets their claims filled, everybody gets paid for the work and the largest world entity takes on all the risk, a load it could certainly bear with the newer revenue. Risk bearing spread among everyone instead of a select few.

Change my mind by convincing me why this would not work and be better.

Edit: I’m going for the day; will do more replies at work tomorrow.  I have continued to enumerate what would cause me to change my view in the recent posts.
gpt
The problem with government is that there is no requirement for it to be good. In business, if you have a crappy product then your company goes bankrupt. If you don’t keep up with the times, if you pay your employees too much, if your product or service sucks, the the competition will do it better and cheaper.

In government, things move so slow, everyone is in a union, technology is from the 80s, republicans and democrats don’t agree and can’t pass anything. It’s the worst. 

Yes, you can have a universal “auto coverage for all” program, but it would be more expensive, slower, less responsive, and people that worked there would be unmotivated to make anything better.