[supernova87a]

State insurance regulators do have a legitimate purpose -- to prevent totally free-market (read, "lawless") behavior by insurance sales companies which happens when people can promise something in the future, take money for it now, but not deliver (ala the golden age of past American business hucksterism). Insurance as a product (or snake oil) is highly prone to this malfeasance when unregulated. Just like lotteries.

But on the other hand, because state regulators are slow to react or adapt to changing circumstances, they essentially freeze the market and the parameters allowed for sales of insurance in the past, for circumstances that may no longer exist.

So, new risks and willingness to insure are not accounted for, and companies no longer find it profitable to do business with rules of the past, in the present.

[randallsquared]

Taking money in exchange for future delivery and then not delivering is no more a “free-market behavior” than mugging is.

[konschubert]

That’s not how insurances work

[woleium]

if only there was some way to ensure that the insurance companies pay, perhaps some kind of insurance insurance /s

[cookingrobot]

That’s called reinsurance, and insurance companies buy that to cover them when disasters are more than they can afford.