Is insurance, a form of voluntary socialism?

Think about it, the purpose of insurance is to guarantee funding in the event of a need. We all contribute into a pool of resources, which is then redistributed to others who meet the requirments of this need.

What say you?

No.

Insurance at it'ss very heart doesn't produce monetary gain - it replaces a loss.

Now that doesnt mean people don't take advantage of insurance and make a profit from it, but the intent is to replace a loss, not to profit from a loss.

Sort of...

A lot of the same collectivist principles in socialism also work in insurance. People share the risk so that they have a safety net, even though they know they'll probably lose money in the long run.

I think "voluntary socialism" is an oxymoron though. The fact that insurance IS voluntary is what makes it capitalist.

To provide insurance is just a business. The state mandating that you have it; that's when it becomes socialistic in nature.

I'd say no because the insurance is there to protect you and you decide how much or how little insurance you pay. There is no mandatory redistribution of the wealth. People who contribute are insured and they are insured at various levels depending on how much they've contributed. The risk lies with the agent providing the insurance.

Now all that said I'm going to say in the case of medical insurance HMOs have turned medical care so upside down that we might be better off with socialized medicine and the HMOs are similar to socialized medicine. The HMOs have turned people into slaves. Rather than being a means to help you pay for your medical cost they have become similar to a socialized system where they decide who gets what, when, and where. You need their approval to see a specialist, you need to wait till they approve you to go, and you need to go where they tell you. So in that instance "insurance" has gotten completely out of control and would probably be more comparable to voluntary socialism or perhaps even involuntary as I don't think hospitals, drs, or patients knew what they were getting in to when the HMOs first came out.

Kandahar said:

Sort of...

A lot of the same collectivist principles in socialism also work in insurance. People share the risk so that they have a safety net, even though they know they'll probably lose money in the long run.

I think "voluntary socialism" is an oxymoron though. The fact that insurance IS voluntary is what makes it capitalist.

Click to expand...

In some states auto insurance is indeed mandatory. But car ownership isn't.

Insurance companies exist to make a profit, just like any other company and they do so by doing what is called Transferring Risk. You agree to pay premiums, they agree to provide certain coverages. Its not socialist in its purist form, but with all the loans given out by banks for certain things
( homes/businesses/cars), the banks want assurances that they will be compensated in the case of a loss, so they usually require it. Insurance is not a need, it is a want. You want a car, you get a loan, the bank wants to know that they will receive compensation if the car is destroyed, so you have to get insurance in order to get the car you want. Usually to work at the job you want.

WI Crippler said:

In some states auto insurance is indeed mandatory. But car ownership isn't.

Click to expand...

That's only because you had so many people causing accidents, but having no way whatsoever to pay for the damages caused. The courts were clogged with lawsuits against people who had no jobs and no money and no property, people were getting screwed over by a relative few who flaunted their responsibility.

Besides, you don't have to have auto insurance, there are ways that you can demonstrate the ability to pay for damage caused in an accident, insurance is just the easiest.

Cephus said:

That's only because you had so many people causing accidents, but having no way whatsoever to pay for the damages caused. The courts were clogged with lawsuits against people who had no jobs and no money and no property, people were getting screwed over by a relative few who flaunted their responsibility.

Click to expand...

The interesting thing, is that states with mandatory insurance have higher premiums on average than states without. There is coverage you can elect to have called uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage that provides protection for you against people who do not carry enough insurance or any insurance at all.

When you get insurance you pay for it.........In a socialist state it would be free.....

Navy Pride said:

When you get insurance you pay for it.........In a socialist state it would be free.....

Click to expand...

You'd still pay for it in the form of taxes.

Kandahar said:

You'd still pay for it in the form of taxes.

Click to expand...

That is true....you would pay for all the freebies with taxes but if you were poor you would not pay taxes.........

WI Crippler said:

The interesting thing, is that states with mandatory insurance have higher premiums on average than states without. There is coverage you can elect to have called uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage that provides protection for you against people who do not carry enough insurance or any insurance at all.

Click to expand...

Of course they are, the insurance companies are required to cover bad drivers who otherwise wouldn't be able to get insurance at all and those costs are passed on to everyone. That's the way insurance works, premiums are higher where bad things happen.

Cephus said:

Of course they are, the insurance companies are required to cover bad drivers who otherwise wouldn't be able to get insurance at all and those costs are passed on to everyone.

Click to expand...

Not in Ohio. Drivers are required to obtain insurance, but if they can't find any because of their shitty driving record, that's their tough luck.

Insurance Companies would not exist if a lot of rich folks were not getting richer from it and the is pure capitalism.

You are using the word Socialism very loosely and changing the meaning of the word socialism to suit yourself. By using your interpretation, then United Airlines would be a kind of socialism. So would the Military, the NFL, Major League baseball and the National Rifle Association.

what is socialism? I use to teach classes in Political Science when I was younger. Let us look it up

Infoplease: Encyclopedia, Almanac, Atlas, Biographies, Dictionary, Thesaurus. Free online reference, research & homework help.

socialism
socialism, general term for the political and economic theory that advocates a system of collective or government ownership and management of the means of production and distribution of goods. Because of the collective nature of socialism, it is to be contrasted to the doctrine of the sanctity of private property that characterizes capitalism. Where capitalism stresses competition and profit, socialism calls for cooperation and social service.

a broader sense, the term socialism is often used loosely to describe economic theories ranging from those that hold that only certain public utilities and natural resources should be owned by the state to those holding that the state should assume responsibility for all economic planning and direction. In the past 150 years there have been innumerable differing socialist programs. For this reason socialism as a doctrine is ill defined, although its main purpose, the establishment of cooperation in place of competition remains fixed.

Don't be afraid to read what it says in the dictionary or encylopedia.

the truth is that there is quite a bit of mixed up thinking about what socialism is. It seems to an interesting topic. Yet the idea that socialism is cooperation is constant. Insurance companies, compete with other insurance companies for business and that is pure profit
motivated Capitalism.:mrgreen:

talloulou said:

Now all that said I'm going to say in the case of medical insurance HMOs have turned medical care so upside down that we might be better off with socialized medicine and the HMOs are similar to socialized medicine. The HMOs have turned people into slaves. Rather than being a means to help you pay for your medical cost they have become similar to a socialized system where they decide who gets what, when, and where. You need their approval to see a specialist, you need to wait till they approve you to go, and you need to go where they tell you. So in that instance "insurance" has gotten completely out of control and would probably be more comparable to voluntary socialism or perhaps even involuntary as I don't think hospitals, drs, or patients knew what they were getting in to when the HMOs first came out.

Click to expand...

So True!:mrgreen:


Many doctors have limited accepting Hmos for this very reason. Many, including yours truley, have fired them from their practice. (Of course we give a six month warning so they can find other docs or other plans)


Also, as an employee you can get a PPO plan which has much less restrictions if you are willing to pay the extra montlhy premiums.

As for HMOs being socialist, theymay seem or feel like it for the medical delivery community but I think the CEOs of HMOS have salaries that put fortune 500 execs to shame. As far as they are concerned, they are purely benefitting in every capitalistic way!

Cephus said:

Of course they are, the insurance companies are required to cover bad drivers who otherwise wouldn't be able to get insurance at all and those costs are passed on to everyone. That's the way insurance works, premiums are higher where bad things happen.

Click to expand...

Exactly, and in states like this insurance companies, despite the higher premiums still tend to lose money on the dollar on auto insurance. However there has been a turnaround that is making auto insurance profitable ( about 4 cents to the dollar profit) and that is the implementation of credit scoring.....which is now being criticized by officials as somehow being discriminatory. Well it is, if you consider the fact insurance companies don't want to be competitive in pricing for people who don't pay their bills on time...

tecoyah said:

Think about it, the purpose of insurance is to guarantee funding in the event of a need. We all contribute into a pool of resources, which is then redistributed to others who meet the requirments of this need.

What say you?

Click to expand...

Insurance is not socialism.It resembles a capitalist tool for monetary gain.But insurance is like a back up plan.For example you wreck into someone,that insurance is there to make sure the person you hit is compensated or if you are hit by someone then you are compensated.Because a poor man is not going to to be able to pay you everything at once and perhaps someone with money may think your vehicle is such a piece a chit that he did the world a favor by wrecking into you and therefore thinks he doesn't have to compensate you.

The thing I dislike about auto-insurance is that the only way you will get your money's worth is if you wreck into someone's else car,however as the old saying goes it is better to have it and not need it than it is to need it and not have it.

WI Crippler said:

Exactly, and in states like this insurance companies, despite the higher premiums still tend to lose money on the dollar on auto insurance. However there has been a turnaround that is making auto insurance profitable ( about 4 cents to the dollar profit) and that is the implementation of credit scoring.....which is now being criticized by officials as somehow being discriminatory. Well it is, if you consider the fact insurance companies don't want to be competitive in pricing for people who don't pay their bills on time...

Click to expand...

Nor should they and insurance companies should not have to pay out for any accident that happens under a lapsed policy either. Financial responsibility means you pay your bills on time, period.