I think I have to disagree, logan, for two reasons: first, because I think that definition of socialism is far too narrow; and second, because I think that generalized description of "the US insurance industry" applies to only some participants.
Certainly state-sponsored social benefits are a form of socialism, but limiting the term to a centrally-planned economy is not, in my opinion, describing the hallmark of a socialistic system. That is more the definition adopted by detractors. Going to the roots of socialist thought (theory), I would say it was a form of social organization where the fruits of labor were communally enjoyed. From there a myriad of branches sprung, one of which developed into communism, but others of which grew into various delineated organizations from communes to social-democratic political parties. Many of the New Deal programs of FDR were directly taken from the Socialist program of the early 20th century. In that sense, Social Security and, later, Medicare were socialist with both a small and capital "S". I can't see how they can in any way be deemed a "skewing" of the concept. Perhaps you can elaborate on that point?
As for the description of the US insurance industry, I simply do not understand the basis of your description. Who's payout? Are we talking about just the stock insurance companies, behemoths like AIG, or all of the other variations? Frankly, I just don't follow. I might agree to some degree (at least with regard to AIG and its ilk), but I, personally, would need that thought fleshed out.
I'm enjoying the discussion. Please don't take disagreement as dismissal. I'm genuinely trying to follow the argument, and presenting my view as a means of fleshing it out for a better understanding.
