Insurance is socialism and socialism is communism

[Paul G.]

All insurance is a form of socialism, why do the right wingers stand for it? Some people get things like new cars when theirs are stolen or new hips when theirs wear out. For shame I say, any true American would not pay commie insurance. What next? Paying for someone else's children to get healthcare!!!

[Bob (oh, THAT Bob)]

"You can't do that, it's socialism. OK wait now, while we position ourselves to make piles of money off it. OK now you can do that."

"You can't grow marijuana, it'll interfere with the products of big pharma. What, you mean we can't hold back the tide of public opinion any longer? Hold on a minute while we now position large corporations to grow MJ and prohibit individuals from growing more than a couple of plants. OK now you can legalize marijuana."

[Phil Y]

Insurance is not socialism. Insurers make huge profits.

[PeterSibley]

Insurance is applied capitalism.

[Reynard38]

Out present system of medical insurance is part of the reason a tongue depressor costs $50.

[WX]

Actually insurance is a form of gambling.

[Paul G.]

Out present system of medical insurance is part of the reason a tongue depressor costs $50.

but what a great tongue depressor it must be

[Stiletto]

Out present system of medical insurance is part of the reason a tongue depressor costs $50.

Yes, it's depressing.

[David G]

Insurance is applied capitalism.

Just so. Not socialism at all, at all.

You could more readily make the argument that insurance is a sorta, kinda, peripheral aspect of communitarianism. But even that is a bit of a stretch.

[Boater14]

Maybe but insurance got my new CRV put back together when some snot had his third accident and hit my wife. I'm a RED.

[Bob (oh, THAT Bob)]

Actually insurance is a form of gambling.

Only at Lloyd's, where they put their actual fortunes on the line, and not those of their shareholders.

[Dan McCosh]

Health insurance isn't really insurance. It's more like going to lunch with a group and everybody pays an equal share of the check, regardless of what you order.

[Bob (oh, THAT Bob)]

Health insurance isn't really insurance. It's more like going to lunch with a group and everybody pays an equal share of the check, regardless of what you order.

Only if it's a mutual insurance company, and not for profit.

[Keith Wilson]

Health insurance isn't really insurance. It's more like going to lunch with a group and everybody pays an equal share of the check, regardless of what you order.

Nonsense; this is a complete misunderstanding. Again, the reason we have insurance, or other more efficient ways of providing heath care to everybody, is that we can't know the future. More like you sit down at the table, and they deliver stuff more or less at random. Some get PB&J, some get soup, some get the fish fry, and some get a big juicy spider with a side of cat turds. Ask Aulikki; did she 'order' her aneurysm? Tell us what you've 'ordered', then, exactly what medical care you're going to need in the next five years?

[Dan McCosh]

Nonsense; this is a complete misunderstanding. Again, the reason we have insurance, or other more efficient ways of providing heath care to everybody, is that we can't know the future. More like you sit down at the table, and they deliver stuff more or less at random. Some get PB&J, some get soup, some get the fish fry, and some get a big juicy spider with a side of cat turds. Ask Aulikki; did she 'order' her aneurysm? Tell us what you've 'ordered', then, exactly what medical care you're going to need in the next five years?

It's not a misunderstanding at all. It's how the current system works for health care. The cost of belonging to the pool reflects who is in the pool. That's basically what is being argued about--who is in which pool. If the pool is a whole country, you have national health care. If one person is in the pool, you have no health insurance. As for the next five years, the big risk is getting tossed out of the pool, and becoming SOL.

[oznabrag]

It's not a misunderstanding at all. It's how the current system works for health care. The cost of belonging to the pool reflects who is in the pool. That's basically what is being argued about--who is in which pool. If the pool is a whole country, you have national health care. If one person is in the pool, you have no health insurance. As for the next five years, the big risk is getting tossed out of the pool, and becoming SOL.

Only if it's a mutual insurance company, and not for profit.

I'm pretty sure BOTB has the credentials on this.

[Keith Wilson]

Certainly. My disagreement is with the idea that we 'order' anything. While we can affect our odds - living on a diet of Twinkies and lard or working in an asbestos mine is obviously less likely to lead to a long healthy life - much of any one person's need for health care is either random or controlled by factors we don't understand in advance. Thus the pool, which works best when it's as large as possible - exactly the opposite of what the Republicans are trying to do.

[Dan McCosh]

The analogy with "ordering" was meant to refer to how anyone at the table can spend as much as he/she wants, not what was ordered. This is analogous to prices charged for medical care--there is no actual market to restrict the the price for a medical service, so it must be negotiated. Actually, it is very easy to predict the medical needs of a large population. People are born, and they die. Individuals may differ in how long and how well they live, and how they die, but they all share the same fate.

[Keith Wilson]

The analogy with "ordering" was meant to refer to how anyone at the table can spend as much as he/she wants, not what was ordered. This is analogous to prices charged for medical care--there is no actual market to restrict the the price for a medical service, so it must be negotiated. Actually, it is very easy to predict the medical needs of a large population. People are born, and they die. Individuals may differ in how long and how well they live, and how they die, but they all share the same fate.

Well, sort of; probably a problem with the analogy, not the thinking behind it. Almost nobody uses medical care by choice, and almost everyone would rather not need any (excepting things like cosmetic surgery, which insurance generally doesn't cover). We need what we need. The average for a large population for a given level of technology is fairly predictable. For an individual, no.

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

In 1601 Sir Francis Bacon proposed An Acte Concerning Matters of Insurance Amongste Merchantes to the House of Commons.

Speaking for the Bill, Bacon explained to the MPs that with insurance, "with the loss or perishing of any shippe, there followeth not the undoing of any man, but the losse lighteth rather easily upon many, than heavily upon a fewe."

Yup, that's Socialism...

[Dan McCosh]

In 1601 Sir Francis Bacon proposed An Acte Concerning Matters of Insurance Amongste Merchantes to the House of Commons.

Speaking for the Bill, Bacon explained to the MPs that with insurance, "with the loss or perishing of any shippe, there followeth not the undoing of any man, but the losse lighteth rather easily upon many, than heavily upon a fewe."

Yup, that's Socialism...

Of course, they were insuring slaves.

[Keith Wilson]

Oh don't be silly. Most of European trade at that point had nothing to do with transporting slaves, and almost none of English commerce. Later, yes.

[Dan McCosh]

From Wiki:


The market began in Lloyd's Coffee House, opened by Edward Lloyd in around 1688 on Tower Street in the historic City of London. This establishment was a popular place for sailors, merchants, and ship-owners, and Lloyd catered to them with reliable shipping news. The coffee house soon became recognised as an ideal place for obtaining marine insurance. The shop was also frequented by mariners involved in the slave trade. Historian Eric Williams notes: "Lloyd's, like other insurance companies, insured slaves and slave ships, and was vitally interested in legal decisions as to what constituted 'natural death' and 'perils of the sea'."[3] Lloyd's obtained a monopoly on maritime insurance related to the slave trade and maintained it until the early 19th century.[4]

All that aside, Lloyds was formed as a marketplace for syndicates offering underwriting--sort of like a seat at a gaming table. That's why it became famous for its ability to come up with "insurance" that would bet against almost anything.

[Too Little Time]

Nonsense; this is a complete misunderstanding. Again, the reason we have insurance, or other more efficient ways of providing heath care to everybody, is that we can't know the future. More like you sit down at the table, and they deliver stuff more or less at random. Some get PB&J, some get soup, some get the fish fry, and some get a big juicy spider with a side of cat turds. Ask Aulikki; did she 'order' her aneurysm? Tell us what you've 'ordered', then, exactly what medical care you're going to need in the next five years?

As usual you show a complete misunderstanding. Insurance is where I pay someone to accept some of my risk . Actually the economic cost of my risk.

Knowing the future has nothing to do with it. In fact, if we know the future there is no insurance: The insurer will charge a premium equal to your future cost. There is no reason to accept that offer. This is a problem with pre existing conditions. The insurer wants to charge the cost of the pre existing condition as well as a premium for all other services. That makes people with pre existing conditions very angry.

Insurers like to insure lots of people as the law of large numbers changes the uncertainty from a single insured into a guaranteed profit from many insured.

Until you understand what insurance is and why people might want it you will not achieve what you are seeking. You want a tax plan to pay for health care. That is not insurance.

[Keith Wilson]

In fact, if we know the future there is no insurance:

EXACTLY! That's what I've been saying all along. The fact that we don't know what's going to happen except statistically, that we know that about one house in 1000, or 10,000 or whatever, will burn down but we don't know which one - this is what makes insurance both possible and useful. Sir Francis Bacon in 1601 knew that over the long term a certain percentage of ships would sink, but nobody knew in advance which ones it would be. I'm beginning to suspect we're saying exactly the same thing in a somewhat different way.

Likewise, a national health care plan is just insurance writ large, but financed through legally-required contributions rather than voluntary premiums. The government of Canada, for example, knows that its citizens will need X billions of dollars of health care next year, more or less. They don't know who will get sick or precisely what will happen, but they don't need to, merely a fairly close idea of the total cost. They then collect taxes and pay for health care with the revenue. This is exactly like insurance, except that it's legally required and not for profit.

[robm]

But - but - that's COMMUNISM!!

And we like it.

[webishop14]

I define socialism as doing for the people what the people cannot do for themselves. Like building bridges, or highways. By this definition, ALL government is socialist by nature.

[David G]

I define socialism as doing for the people what the people cannot do for themselves. Like building bridges, or highways. By this definition, ALL government is socialist by nature.

Not precisely. But related. Here ya go --

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

[Too Little Time]

EXACTLY! That's what I've been saying all along. The fact that we don't know what's going to happen except statistically, that we know that about one house in 1000, or 10,000 or whatever, will burn down but we don't know which one - this is what makes insurance both possible and useful. Sir Francis Bacon in 1601 knew that over the long term a certain percentage of ships would sink, but nobody knew in advance which ones it would be. I'm beginning to suspect we're saying exactly the same thing in a somewhat different way.

Likewise, a national health care plan is just insurance writ large, but financed through legally-required contributions rather than voluntary premiums. The government of Canada, for example, knows that its citizens will need X billions of dollars of health care next year, more or less. They don't know who will get sick or precisely what will happen, but they don't need to, merely a fairly close idea of the total cost. They then collect taxes and pay for health care with the revenue. This is exactly like insurance, except that it's legally required and not for profit.

I am sure we are saying something close to the same.

You want to ignore both the future and past and place everyone in some easily identified risk groups - age and gender, perhaps others. And then force everyone to pay according to some schedule. That is what other countries do. That is what single payer is based on. I think that makes it not insurance.

I am willing to place all the poor (below 50% of the median) into a group and force the rich to pay them. I would not call that insurance. I am willing to allow the top 50% to have insurance or not.

[Keith Wilson]

You want to ignore both the future and past and place everyone in some easily identified risk groups - age and gender, perhaps others. And then force everyone to pay according to some schedule. That is what other countries do. That is what single payer is based on. I think that makes it not insurance.

I haven't proposed a health care system, but if I were to do so, it would be something like Canada's; single-payer for the entire population, no exceptions. I would pay for it mostly by progressive taxes on income, wealth, or both. Whether you call it government-run health insurance or tax-financed medical care matters not even a little; the outcome's the same.

[Landrith]

Currently watching the healthcare town hall. I am now even more convinced insurance is an evil lie. It has no place in government.

[webishop14]

David --

I prefer a modified form of socialism. As we are seeing, entrepreneurs (businessmen) usually know how best to run their businesses (and if they don't they pay the price), and do a very lousy job trying to run a business-friendly government. We have seen both sides of this happen in the past few decades: the bankruptcy of communism, the bankruptcy of the GOP's current attempt to run our country. Healthcare, education, building and maintenance of infrastructure should be the purview of the government. Running businesses should be the business of businessmen. However, we do need those pesky government regulations in place to keep the pot from boiling over.

[David G]

David --

I prefer a modified form of socialism. As we are seeing, entrepreneurs (businessmen) usually know how best to run their businesses (and if they don't they pay the price), and do a very lousy job trying to run a business-friendly government. We have seen both sides of this happen in the past few decades: the bankruptcy of communism, the bankruptcy of the GOP's current attempt to run our country. Healthcare, education, building and maintenance of infrastructure should be the purview of the government. Running businesses should be the business of businessmen. However, we do need those pesky government regulations in place to keep the pot from boiling over.

You're describing what I'd call a 'mixed' economy. Others would simply call it 'well-regulated capitalism' (the only sort that works).

[Too Little Time]

I haven't proposed a health care system, but if I were to do so, it would be something like Canada's; single-payer for the entire population, no exceptions. I would pay for it mostly by progressive taxes on income, wealth, or both. Whether you call it government-run health insurance or tax-financed medical care matters not even a little; the outcome's the same.

I did not write you proposed a health care system. I did say you want to ignore the risk issue that makes a system insurance. You did write "They [government of Canada] don't know who will get sick or precisely what will happen." Certainly, Canada knows who has pre existing conditions and they know for a fact how that affects their medical costs. I believe Canada ignores that.

Calling it insurance rather than tax matters a lot. As some people here have told me: words matter. The implication of insurance is that we are paying for our personal risk rather than those with low costs paying for those with high costs. You might have noted in the past many posters have said that insurance is where people with low health care expenses pay for those with high health care expenses. So many have fallen victim of the misuse of words.

And now we are back to saying different things.

[Keith Wilson]

We may be getting to a real distinction, although I don't know it it's important or not.

We have partial and imperfect knowledge of the future. Some things we can predict with certainty, some things we can give accurate odds for, some things we can give odds for with some margin of error, some things we cannot predict at all.

For example: consider marine insurance in Francis Bacon's time. Insurers could predict with some degree of accuracy that a certain percentage of ships on commercial voyages would be lost. They could not predict the fate of any individual ship. From this, they could calculate how much to charge for insurance. If overall one ship in 100 sank, the average rate must be 1% of the value insured plus profit.

Now, commercial insurance is a competitive profit-making business, and those buying it want to pay as little as possible for the same coverage. Thus, insurers always have incentive to use their partial knowledge of the odds to make finer distinctions and divide up the pool, charging less to those with better odds: inspecting ships and charging less to those in better shape, for example, or those with more experienced captains and crew, or in seasons when storms are less likely, or ships sailing on safer routes. If they do this, they will also have to charge more for riskier ventures, because overall the same percentage of ships will still sink. If one insurance company starts to do this, they will get all the business of the ships less likely to sink, because they will charge them less. Other insurers will be forced to do the same, or be left with only the riskier ships, charging too little, and losing money.

This is the important point: competitive commercial for-profit insurance always will divide up the pool into as fine distinctions as our partial ability to predict the future allows, unless prevented from doing so by some outside force.

Likewise with health insurance. We have partial and imperfect knowledge of who is likely to need medical care in the future. Some things we can predict with certainty, some things we can give accurate odds for, some things we can give odds for with some margin of error, some things we cannot predict at all. We can be sure that everyone will die eventually. We know that someone already diagnosed with cancer, or someone with Type 1 diabetes is quite likely to need expensive treatment in the future. We know that the older you are, the more likely you are to get sick. We know that someone who smokes or is overweight is somewhat more likely to need expensive treatment than someone who isn't. We know that certain genes predispose one to certain conditions. OTOH, we can't predict at all who will develop pancreatic cancer, although we can be pretty sure that about 1 in 10,000 people will die of it.

And again, just like ships in 1650, competitive for-profit insurance must divide up the pool into as small slices as our partial knowledge allows, unless prevented by law or some other outside force.

This is why single-payer health care (call it insurance or not, it doesn't matter) works pretty well in a lot of countries. It makes the pool as large as possible, the costs as predictable as they can be, and to some degree controllable. It also allows collection of costs through taxes that can be structured more by ability to pay.