Is insurance a form of Socialism?

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Is insurance a form of Socialism?

Post by Steve3007 »

The essential ingredient in the concept of insurance is the pooling of risk. In order for any insurance system to work there has to be at least some extent to which the fortunate pay the expenses of the less fortunate. If the fortunate are able to choose an insurance scheme in which they minimize their premiums by only sharing risk with those who have similar fortunes to themselves, can that work? In the specific case of healthcare, can that work? Is it desirable?

There are some kinds of insurance that we are legally or contractually obliged to take out. Where I live, this includes 3rd Party car insurance (legally, if you drive a car) and buildings insurance (contractually, if you have a mortgage on your home). It also effectively includes health insurance (via compulsory taxes which are, effectively, health insurance payments.)

Is this right?
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Is insurance a form of Socialism?

Post by Burning ghost »

It's a "legal" con.
AKA badgerjelly
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Is insurance a form of Socialism?

Post by Steve3007 »

What's a legal con?
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Is insurance a form of Socialism?

Post by Burning ghost »

I mean a con that is legal? What did you think I meant.

So I don't see it as a form of "socialism" at all. If anything it is a capitalist idea.
AKA badgerjelly
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Is insurance a form of Socialism?

Post by Steve3007 »

I meant: What does does the "it" stand for. Your answer is that it stands for insurance.

Obviously I disagree that insurance is a legal con. Why do you think it is?
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Is insurance a form of Socialism?

Post by Burning ghost »

I regard anything that plays on people's fears in order to gain a profit a form of con.
AKA badgerjelly
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Is insurance a form of Socialism?

Post by Steve3007 »

I don't think there is anything in the concept of insurance that is playing on people's fears. I think it just means entering into an agreement to pay a relatively small amount of money in exchange for a relatively large amount of money if an unlikely event happens. No different, in principle, to betting on a horse. But more useful.

-- Updated Fri Oct 13, 2017 3:31 pm to add the following --

It's main effect is to reduce fear by reducing uncertainty.

-- Updated Fri Oct 13, 2017 3:43 pm to add the following --

I compare insurance to socialism because they both involve the pooling of risk, the smoothing out of bumps (inequalities) and the fortunate subsidising the unfortunate.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Is insurance a form of Socialism?

Post by GE Morton »

Steve3007 wrote:The essential ingredient in the concept of insurance is the pooling of risk. In order for any insurance system to work there has to be at least some extent to which the fortunate pay the expenses of the less fortunate. If the fortunate are able to choose an insurance scheme in which they minimize their premiums by only sharing risk with those who have similar fortunes to themselves, can that work? In the specific case of healthcare, can that work? Is it desirable?
"Fortunate" and "unfortunate" are ambiguous terms. The terms can be used to denote the better off and the less well off, respectively, or the winner and loser of, say, a poker round, respectively. In your insurance context only the second applies. If we both buy fire insurance and my house burns down and yours doesn't, then you're fortunate and I'm unfortunate. But you're not necessarily better off than me.

Unlike "socialism" or Nanny-state "safety nets," insurance, properly managed, does not involve subsidies. Better off members of the risk pool do not subsidize less well-off members. Pool members pay premiums based on the extent of risk* they present. If I have a history of traffic accidents and tickets, and you have a clean driving record, I'll pay more for auto insurance than you. If you have a $500,000 house and I have a $200,000 house, you'll pay more for fire insurance than me. In a free, rational market, older persons and persons with pre-existing conditions will pay more for health insurance than younger, healthier people --- because, like the bad driver and the owner of the more valuable house, they present greater risks.

As for whether free market insurance can work for health insurance, of course it can --- it worked for decades until the emergence of the Nanny State, beginning in the 1930s.

* Risk is the product of the magnitude of a loss X the probability that it will occur.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Is insurance a form of Socialism?

Post by LuckyR »

Steve3007 wrote:I don't think there is anything in the concept of insurance that is playing on people's fears. I think it just means entering into an agreement to pay a relatively small amount of money in exchange for a relatively large amount of money if an unlikely event happens. No different, in principle, to betting on a horse. But more useful.

-- Updated Fri Oct 13, 2017 3:31 pm to add the following --

It's main effect is to reduce fear by reducing uncertainty.

-- Updated Fri Oct 13, 2017 3:43 pm to add the following --

I compare insurance to socialism because they both involve the pooling of risk, the smoothing out of bumps (inequalities) and the fortunate subsidising the unfortunate.
Your analysis is the best description in the thread so far. One additional facet on the topic is the question what are you purchasing when you buy insurance? Obviously you are buying benefits if you have a claim, however you are also buying peace of mind, thus why even if you never make a claim you are still receiving something from the policy.

If you don't like the idea of insurance, you can go bare, but if you can't cover your expenses and take refuge in bankruptcy court, the taxpayer and the customers of your creditors pick up your tab, we prefer you pay your premiums than leave us to pick up your mess.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Is insurance a form of Socialism?

Post by Burning ghost »

My view is a cynical one. I perfectly understand the advantages. I guess like every idea it has its advantages and disadvantages. The incentive for profit is what makes me pose such a strong opposition to it as being part of "socialism". I think viewing it more like the mutant child of capitialism and socialism may be more honest.

I don't view it as a product of "socialism", but it is a very interesting comparison to make.
AKA badgerjelly
Londoner
Posts: 1783
Joined: March 8th, 2013, 12:46 pm

Re: Is insurance a form of Socialism?

Post by Londoner »

GE Morton wrote: In a free, rational market, older persons and persons with pre-existing conditions will pay more for health insurance than younger, healthier people --- because, like the bad driver and the owner of the more valuable house, they present greater risks.

As for whether free market insurance can work for health insurance, of course it can --- it worked for decades until the emergence of the Nanny State, beginning in the 1930s.

* Risk is the product of the magnitude of a loss X the probability that it will occur.
Except that if we could calculate risks in that way then insurance would not work. If we could clearly identify all the good drivers, why would they want to be part of an insurance scheme that covered bad drivers? Why not form their own scheme, where the premiums would be lower? Although then the worse drivers would no longer be able to get any insurance at all, or their premiums would be so high they would avoid paying.

That would be fine - except that the good drivers and the bad drivers would still interact on the roads. The good drivers' premiums cannot just reflect their abilities because they would also have to cover the cost of an accident with an uninsured bad driver. Thus, although there is an element in insurance that reflects how good a driver we are, and the value of our car, it is compulsory because driving is an activity where one person's action affects another.

The same is true of health. It is in my interests, as a healthy person, that sick people are treated. So insurance - and socialism - is a recognition that sometimes it is in our individual interests to support society as a whole.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Is insurance a form of Socialism?

Post by Steve3007 »

G E Morton:
"Fortunate" and "unfortunate" are ambiguous terms. The terms can be used to denote the better off and the less well off, respectively, or the winner and loser of, say, a poker round, respectively.
Yes, it's an interesting fact (which I heard discussed by a celebrity philosopher the other day!) that a long time ago people who had fallen on hard times were often referred to as "poor unfortunates". That term sounds archaic now. These days, such people are usually referred to as "losers". A strong shift in the assignment of blame. The current US president, for example, clearly sees "loser" as the worst kind of insult to fit the worst kind of crime: failure.
Unlike "socialism" or Nanny-state "safety nets," insurance, properly managed, does not involve subsidies. Better off members of the risk pool do not subsidize less well-off members. Pool members pay premiums based on the extent of risk* they present. If I have a history of traffic accidents and tickets, and you have a clean driving record, I'll pay more for auto insurance than you. If you have a $500,000 house and I have a $200,000 house, you'll pay more for fire insurance than me.
If this principle is taken to its logical conclusion then it wouldn't be insurance at all because each person would be in a "pool" of one person - the one person with precisely that level of risk. That doesn't happen. Assessing the level of risk, and placing people with similar but not exactly the same risk in their own pools reduces the size of the pool but it doesn't change the general principle of pooled risk and subsidy.

As Londoner points out in a later post, the people in the different pools still have to live together and interact.
As for whether free market insurance can work for health insurance, of course it can --- it worked for decades until the emergence of the Nanny State, beginning in the 1930s.
I guess you're talking about the US here, and the 1930's Roosevelt "New Deal" thing. I don't know enough about that case to be able to see why you think the above is true. Could you elaborate?

LuckyR:
One additional facet on the topic is the question what are you purchasing when you buy insurance? Obviously you are buying benefits if you have a claim, however you are also buying peace of mind, thus why even if you never make a claim you are still receiving something from the policy.
Yes, or to put it another way, your insurance premium acts to smooth out the financial peaks and troughs of life. That's what you're buying. I guess the extent to which you like insurance (and socialism?) depends a bit on the extent to which you prefer the safety of smoothness to the excitement of uncertainty and big peaks and troughs.
If you don't like the idea of insurance, you can go bare, but if you can't cover your expenses and take refuge in bankruptcy court, the taxpayer and the customers of your creditors pick up your tab, we prefer you pay your premiums than leave us to pick up your mess.
This (I think) is one of the reasons why a certain amount of this "leveling off" makes the world a better place for everyone to live in, including those that "lose" as a result of this leveling. This leads into the subject of whether any elements of socialism are desirable or whether the unfettered free-market principle whereby everybody should be "left alone so long as they don't harm others" works best.

It depends on the kind of society we want to live in.

Burning ghost:
My view is a cynical one. I perfectly understand the advantages. I guess like every idea it has its advantages and disadvantages. The incentive for profit is what makes me pose such a strong opposition to it as being part of "socialism".
Yes, I agree that the comparison with socialism doesn't entirely work. Only partially. The title of the topic was partly a conceit to start the conversation going.
I think viewing it more like the mutant child of capitialism and socialism may be more honest.
Interesting image!
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Is insurance a form of Socialism?

Post by GE Morton »

Londoner wrote:Except that if we could calculate risks in that way then insurance would not work. If we could clearly identify all the good drivers, why would they want to be part of an insurance scheme that covered bad drivers? Why not form their own scheme, where the premiums would be lower?
First, we can clearly identify all the good drivers. We look at their driving records. And if they're new drivers, i.e., young people, then we set their premiums based on the mean loss rate for their age group and location. And the good drivers are indifferent to whether bad drivers are admitted to the pool, because the latter pay the additional premiums necessary. The premiums of the good drivers are not affected.
That would be fine - except that the good drivers and the bad drivers would still interact on the roads. The good drivers' premiums cannot just reflect their abilities because they would also have to cover the cost of an accident with an uninsured bad driver.
That is true, which is why most auto policies include uninsured motorist coverage for a (fairly) small additional premium. The amount of that premium reflects the diligence of the State in keeping uninsured drivers off the road.
Thus, although there is an element in insurance that reflects how good a driver we are, and the value of our car, it is compulsory because driving is an activity where one person's action affects another.
Virtually all human activities in a social setting affect others. Auto insurance is only compulsory if you operate your vehicle on public roadways. It is a condition for the use of that public property.
The same is true of health. It is in my interests, as a healthy person, that sick people are treated. So insurance - and socialism - is a recognition that sometimes it is in our individual interests to support society as a whole.
Unless the sick person suffers from a communicable disease which might infect you, the interest you assert is not economic. If that interest springs from some private morality you embrace, then you can contribute to a charity devoted to that cause. But the State has no business imposing those obligations on others who do not embrace that private morality.

BTW, society "as a whole" has no interests. The only interests to be found in any society are the interests of its individual members, which differ from person to person.

-- Updated October 14th, 2017, 11:45 am to add the following --
Steve3007 wrote:
If this principle is taken to its logical conclusion then it wouldn't be insurance at all because each person would be in a "pool" of one person - the one person with precisely that level of risk. That doesn't happen. Assessing the level of risk, and placing people with similar but not exactly the same risk in their own pools reduces the size of the pool but it doesn't change the general principle of pooled risk and subsidy.
That doesn't follow. It doesn't matter what level of risk the individual brings to the pool, as long as each pays a premium reflective of that risk.
I guess you're talking about the US here, and the 1930's Roosevelt "New Deal" thing. I don't know enough about that case to be able to see why you think the above is true. Could you elaborate?
Prior to WWII Americans paid 90% of their health care costs out of their pockets. If your kid fell out of a tree and broke her arm, or you needed a course of penicillin to treat bacterial pneumonia, you paid the doc when you left the clinic. If they carried insurance it was "major medical," which kicked in when expenses exceeded some (fairly high) threshold. Comprehensive health insurance became popular during WWII. Because so many men were overseas fighting the war, labor was scarce. But wage and price controls were in effect, and employers could not offer higher wages to attract workers. But fringe benefits were not covered by the controls. So employers began offering comprehensive health insurance policies. Then the government began covering the heath care costs of many people, via Medicare and various welfare programs. As a result, only about 15% of health care costs are now paid out of the patients' pockets (which includes insurance premiums, co-pays and deductibles), and many people now believe that someone else is responsible for their health care, that they have "right" to health care. Which, of course, they don't.
Londoner
Posts: 1783
Joined: March 8th, 2013, 12:46 pm

Re: Is insurance a form of Socialism?

Post by Londoner »

GE Morton wrote: First, we can clearly identify all the good drivers. We look at their driving records. And if they're new drivers, i.e., young people, then we set their premiums based on the mean loss rate for their age group and location. And the good drivers are indifferent to whether bad drivers are admitted to the pool, because the latter pay the additional premiums necessary. The premiums of the good drivers are not affected.
It works better if you read the whole post, rather than replying to each sentence one at a time.
Virtually all human activities in a social setting affect others. Auto insurance is only compulsory if you operate your vehicle on public roadways. It is a condition for the use of that public property.
Yes, I am aware of that.
Unless the sick person suffers from a communicable disease which might infect you, the interest you assert is not economic. If that interest springs from some private morality you embrace, then you can contribute to a charity devoted to that cause. But the State has no business imposing those obligations on others who do not embrace that private morality.
That assumes first that we can know which sick people have diseases are communicable. To find that out you need to provide a health service.

It also assumes that the person makes no economic contribution to society. If firms have to pay the costs associated with sick staff, ultimately that cost gets passed on to the consumer. If the employee has to buy health insurance, they need higher wages and that cost too will ultimately be paid by the consumer. Or the cost can be met by the consumer through taxes. Which method of paying we pick is a calculation, but there is no way of avoiding it. It is nothing to do with morality, it is simply the nature of complex societies where we all depend on each other.
BTW, society "as a whole" has no interests. The only interests to be found in any society are the interests of its individual members, which differ from person to person.
But the individual members cannot meet their own interests. I cannot be my own surgeon, I cannot build the roads I need. I need others, some things I need can only be provided collectively. Therefore I have to take the needs of others into account.
Chili
Posts: 392
Joined: September 29th, 2017, 4:59 pm

Re: Is insurance a form of Socialism?

Post by Chili »

Democratically designed laws are a form of socialism. People may feel they have very good reasons to act outside of a law, but the socialized police force steps in so that the democratic decision regarding the behavior is enforced forcibly. This is true of traffic laws, the draft, theft, violence, etc. Whatever good reason you may feel that "Liberty!" enables you do, the law steps in in many cases to adjudicate. Some of those laws involve taking out insurance.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Politics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021