I guess I feel like there's a lot of that that goes on. It's very expensive to cover peak events, which is why Black Swan events are so dangerous. You can prepare for a certain amount of flooding, but it's too expensive to prepare for 100 year events. You can prepare for a certain energy usage surge, but not for the most extreme. You can create a transportation network or a bandwidth network, or a communications network that handles excessive demand, but not extreme amounts.
It would be too big of a drain towards an efficient economy to collect premiums to cover all deposits. But there's sufficient premiums to cover this incident, particularly if it prevents anything further from happening - whether something further would have happened or not. Why risk it if it's not necessary? Especially if it could be harmful in a way it doesn't have to be.
You say it's a dangerous policy, and I will agree that's a legitimate point of view. I don't want you to think I'm dismissing it or think it has no merit. But from my point of view it's not necessary, and actually sends a harmful signal if you put it in writing. To be fair, the federal government IS insuring the whole banking system, if not every deposit made there. If a decision is made in the future not to cover the uninsured portion of deposits, then hopefully the circumstances warrant it, whatever they might be. But removing that option doesn't make sense to me.
But I'm grateful to have a civil sharing of different points of view, regardless. I'm glad to hear your thinking on it, and appreciate it.