4 ms·

Insurance is cost sharing or a direct socialist aspect in that the cost of the covered item is shared by society as a whole so·cial·ism /ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/ noun a p

by geggam 8y ago

Insurance is cost sharing or a direct socialist aspect in that the cost of the covered item is shared by society as a whole so·cial·ism /ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/ noun a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. In the US insurance has a profit layer making it socialism for profit. It really is that simple.

dmitriid 8y ago
Insurance isn't owned, produced, or exchanged by the community as a whole. It's owned, produced, and exchanged by single commercial entities based on the power of statistics. So, not socialism at all. In the US medical insurance additionally has an unchecked and largely unregulated profit layer. It really is that simple.
- geggam 8y ago
  you mean you arent paying for it ? ...society as a whole isnt ? Check the healthcare costs once more
  - dmitriid 8y ago
    Definition: - [In socialism]: the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. Your claim: - US insurance has a profit layer making it socialism for profit. Question: Which part of medical insurance in the US is produced, distributed, and exchanged by society as a whole? The largest medical insurer in the US is a commercial entity UnitedHealth Group with a membership of 49.5 million people. It's 20% of the adults in the US, but still can hardly be called "society as a whole". And yes, these 20% have no say in how the insurance is produced, distributed, and exchanged. Other insurers are, similarly, commercial entities, smaller in size, and people have no say in how the insurance is produced, distributed, and exchanged. --- Also: - is car insurance socialism? - is accident insurance socialism? - are public roads, public schools, police, firefighting, army, coast guard socialism?
bildung 8y ago
Per your own quote it isn't socialism: The private insurers are getting the profit, not "the community as a whole".
- geggam 8y ago
  correct..the for profit layer is fleecing the entire society. Socialism for profit
close04 8y ago
How does this definition fit with having multiple private entities offering the same service and competing in the same market? It doesn't have to be state controlled and forced onto everybody. Is a small subset of the community considered "community as a whole"? How about when multiple independent subsets pay different prices for different services? If you are getting a discount from you employer for your own products and services (cheaper Windows license as a MS employee) does this imply a socialist setup?
- geggam 8y ago
  Everyone in society is paying increased healthcare costs which can be traced directly to insurance overhead. Check out the doctors who take cash only https://www.moneycrashers.com/cash-only-doctors-no-insurance/ https://www.moneycrashers.com/cash-only-doctors-no-insurance...
  - close04 8y ago
    The whole society pays for everything that is shared. Like roads. Or White House. Expensive cars and plane tickets subsidize cheap ones. The reason costs go up is because in some countries someone sees health insurance more as an opportunity to line their pockets since there is less transparency on how the money is spent and the pool is so big it offers temptation. But this is a problem of implementation, not the system’s concept. This is corruption where “negotiations” with healthcare providers and pharma are more about commissions and bribes so the actual costs don’t matter. Same as with the road building I mentioned above. Is rod building soacialist?
- dominicr 8y ago
  In this instance the companies aren’t competing, they’re price aligning. As the article points out, a competitor launched their product at exactly the same price. That’s not competition, it’s price fixing. The article is about how companies are trying to avoid anticompetitive investigations by putting the exact same product in a different box and selling it for less but only to a smaller market. The definition of socialism is complex and fluid so finding a perfect match is tricky but I do agree that in principle there are many practices between states and businesses that would be, in the US at least, shouted down as “socialist” if they were instead between the state and individuals.

by geggam 8y ago

dmitriid 8y ago

Insurance isn't owned, produced, or exchanged by the community as a whole. It's owned, produced, and exchanged by single commercial entities based on the power of statistics. So, not socialism at all. In the US medical insurance additionally has an unchecked and largely unregulated profit layer. It really is that simple.

geggam 8y ago
you mean you arent paying for it ? ...society as a whole isnt ? Check the healthcare costs once more
- dmitriid 8y ago
  Definition: - [In socialism]: the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. Your claim: - US insurance has a profit layer making it socialism for profit. Question: Which part of medical insurance in the US is produced, distributed, and exchanged by society as a whole? The largest medical insurer in the US is a commercial entity UnitedHealth Group with a membership of 49.5 million people. It's 20% of the adults in the US, but still can hardly be called "society as a whole". And yes, these 20% have no say in how the insurance is produced, distributed, and exchanged. Other insurers are, similarly, commercial entities, smaller in size, and people have no say in how the insurance is produced, distributed, and exchanged. --- Also: - is car insurance socialism? - is accident insurance socialism? - are public roads, public schools, police, firefighting, army, coast guard socialism?

bildung 8y ago

Per your own quote it isn't socialism: The private insurers are getting the profit, not "the community as a whole".

geggam 8y ago
correct..the for profit layer is fleecing the entire society. Socialism for profit

close04 8y ago

How does this definition fit with having multiple private entities offering the same service and competing in the same market? It doesn't have to be state controlled and forced onto everybody. Is a small subset of the community considered "community as a whole"? How about when multiple independent subsets pay different prices for different services? If you are getting a discount from you employer for your own products and services (cheaper Windows license as a MS employee) does this imply a socialist setup?

geggam 8y ago
Everyone in society is paying increased healthcare costs which can be traced directly to insurance overhead. Check out the doctors who take cash only https://www.moneycrashers.com/cash-only-doctors-no-insurance/ https://www.moneycrashers.com/cash-only-doctors-no-insurance...
- close04 8y ago
  The whole society pays for everything that is shared. Like roads. Or White House. Expensive cars and plane tickets subsidize cheap ones. The reason costs go up is because in some countries someone sees health insurance more as an opportunity to line their pockets since there is less transparency on how the money is spent and the pool is so big it offers temptation. But this is a problem of implementation, not the system’s concept. This is corruption where “negotiations” with healthcare providers and pharma are more about commissions and bribes so the actual costs don’t matter. Same as with the road building I mentioned above. Is rod building soacialist?
dominicr 8y ago
In this instance the companies aren’t competing, they’re price aligning. As the article points out, a competitor launched their product at exactly the same price. That’s not competition, it’s price fixing. The article is about how companies are trying to avoid anticompetitive investigations by putting the exact same product in a different box and selling it for less but only to a smaller market. The definition of socialism is complex and fluid so finding a perfect match is tricky but I do agree that in principle there are many practices between states and businesses that would be, in the US at least, shouted down as “socialist” if they were instead between the state and individuals.