University access to the poorer can be handled by public universities that offer their education to citizens/residents (tax-paying constituents of the corresponding political entity or their dependents) at no cost or a symbolic, very low cost.

With regards to insurance, that industry depends on ignorance. If an insurance company had perfect information (psychic, precognition level) on who's going to need a payout when and who's never, then the point of the insurance becomes nil. They're not going to enter contracts with individuals that result in a net loss, only with those that result in a net gain. That can look like them just raising prices until it results in a gain. If that's the case, people can just save and use their own money to cover the events that will happen, because insurance would not be of any benefit to anyone at all.[1]

The way insurance works on a basic level is they know a percentage of people will have a set of events happen to them, but they don't know who. They have a large amount of clientele and charge everyone such that the revenue can cover the expenses of the unlucky percentage of their clientele and make a profit. To the individual, the insurance expense results in significantly less than what they would pay would they be part of the unlucky percentage without the insurance cover.

The arrangement is founded on the ignorance of who belongs to the unlucky percentage. The economics of insurance don't work without the ignorance. So yeah, at some point, algorithmic pricing of insurance likely ought to be banned if we still want insurance to exist on a meaningful level.

> Because passing laws without limits is what leads to unintended consequences.

On this "careful what you change for the consequences it may have" sort of idea, remember that algorithmic pricing is the new thing ("new" on the level it can now be, at least, with all the trading in data going on). It's the thing that may lead to consequential changes. Not having algorithmic pricing is the old, stable way. Passing this type of law is just putting the status quo in writing, in the face of the status quo possibly changing.

[1] In such a scenario, insurance companies are more likely to become some sort of useless middleman you still need, but I'll save the tangent.

> Should universities be banned from offering financial aid to lower-wealth students?

Yes, that is transparently a scam that let's them set the price to "whatever you've got (or could access via loans)." That is exactly the type of thing that should be banned.

Wealth redistribution should be a transparent government policy, not individualized pricing, which makes it impossible for anyone to know ahead of time what anything costs, completely destroying any ability to plan or even have a meaningful concept of money.

Insurance makes more sense to have different factors for premiums, but the market would likely function much better if their algorithms were required to be public.