How would you do it if you were starting from scratch?

This mental exercise is either exhilarating or exasperating – sometimes both – and especially excruciating when examining the intersection of government and business.

Consider last week’s Capitol News Illinois headline: “State leaders seek more transparency from insurance companies.” Ben Szalinski reported on Secretary of State Alexi Giannoulias asking the General Assembly to enact House Bill 3482, which would ban automobile insurance companies from setting rates by factoring credit scores or ages for those 50 and older.

“The horrible, hard truth is that car insurance companies charge you more for auto insurance based on your credit rating, the neighborhood you live in and your age,” Giannoulias said Wednesday. “And it really doesn’t matter that you’re a safe driver.”

The merits of Giannoulias’ argument depend on the existing framework: Illinois requires drivers to carry insurance and has a hand in regulating the policies carriers sell. That all exists in the larger context of interstate commerce and why we have vehicle insurance in the first place.

I’ve been a licensed driver since 1996 and still haven’t filed a claim with my carrier. (In 2014, when my parked, empty car sustained damage because someone else backed straight into it, that driver’s insurance paid for the repair and a short-term rental replacement.) But I pay the premiums every month, even with the substantial spike for adding children to the policy, and continue to hope I’ll never need Allstate’s help.

Hopefully, the cash I’ve contributed over three decades has helped other drivers make the same bargain: our insurer will help in times of need. Certainly, at this point, I’ve spent enough to buy someone a new car. Or at least help the company with all its clever advertising and corporate sponsorships.

But it’s never really about just the cost of repairing or replacing a vehicle. Insurers also have to factor in what a car can inflict on material items, and especially the physical damage to other people. That’s when the matter spills over into property (often homeowner) and health insurance, setting the stage for civil litigation between various indemnifiers. Occasionally it’s just the lawyers arguing with each other over which entity is even obligated to participate in defense of a given claim, and the number of layers of removal from the person who actually needs money to cover an unexpected expense is enough to bring a spin up the original question: isn’t there a better way to organize this whole system?

Unfortunately, state lawmakers can’t really provide a complete answer because systemic change is a nationwide challenge. So we debate things like HB 3482 and hope for a little improvement.

Starting from scratch seems too much to ask.

• Scott T. Holland writes about state government issues for Shaw Local News Network. He can be reached at sholland@shawmedia.com.