There is a compelling argument for placing national insurance under the control of autonomous organizations composed of experts and citizen representatives, though it comes with trade-offs.

The Case for Autonomous Administration

1. Expertise and Technical Competence

   • Efficiency & Stability: Autonomous organizations staffed by experts can focus on technical, long-term goals rather than short-term political cycles.

   • Best Practices: They’re likely to adopt evidence-based policies and best practices from global experiences, potentially leading to more efficient administration.

2. Insulation from Political Pressure

   • Reduced Partisanship: Removing direct political control can mitigate politicization of policy decisions, reducing the risk of policies swinging wildly with electoral cycles.

   • Long-Term Planning: Autonomy allows for long-term strategic planning that isn’t bound by immediate political incentives.

3. Democratic Accountability via Citizen Representation

   • Inclusive Governance: Incorporating citizen representatives helps ensure that the organization's decisions remain aligned with public interests and are transparent.

   • Balanced Oversight: This blend of technical expertise and democratic input aims to balance efficiency with accountability.

4. Precedents in Other Domains

• Central Banks & Regulators: Independent central banks and regulatory agencies have demonstrated that technocratic institutions can effectively manage critical aspects of national policy when designed with safeguards and oversight.

• 
  

• While no system fully embodies the exact model you’re describing, a few examples come close:

The Netherlands – Semi-Autonomous Health Insurance System

• Managed Competition Model: Private, non-profit insurers operate under strict government regulation, ensuring universal coverage while allowing competition.

• Independent Regulatory Body: The Dutch Healthcare Authority (NZa) oversees insurers and ensures compliance with public interest goals.

• Expert and Citizen Input: Health policy is shaped by independent advisory bodies with both expert and public representation.

2. Sweden – Independent Pension and Insurance Administration

• Autonomous Social Insurance Agency (Försäkringskassan): Administers pensions, sick leave benefits, and other social insurance schemes.

• Independent from Direct Government Control: While funded publicly, its decision-making is technocratic and insulated from short-term political interference.

4. Germany – Social Insurance Managed by Self-Governing Bodies

• Corporate Self-Governance (Selbstverwaltung): Social insurance funds, including health insurance, are managed by self-governing bodies composed of employer and worker representatives.

• Limited Government Oversight: The state provides regulatory frameworks but does not directly control daily operations.

5. Singapore – Central Provident Fund (CPF)

• Hybrid Public-Private System: Managed by a statutory board, the CPF Board, which operates autonomously within state-defined guidelines.

• Technocratic Management: Investment decisions are made by financial experts rather than politicians.