Capitol Hill Blue Forums Science and Technology Health, Medicine & the healing Sciences Insurance is inherently socialist

Yes, but also no. The agents in most cases do not take the time to explain a policy thoroughly due to time constraints and in some cases do not fully understand it themselves. It is not until a claim is filed that the adjuster has to explain the coverages, exclusions and limitations. (I always carry a copy of the actual policy with me.)

The insurance commissioner in each state has to approve a policy before it can be sold and rates are also controlled for each type of policy.

State Farm for instance, has expanded coverages added to their policy which make it more attractive and generally sells for a higher price than another company's standard ISO forms. The consumer has choices when it comes to buying insurance.

But in the end, we all, agent and adjusters alike must act with utmost good faith when dealing with these contracts or we risk losing our license. I don't think anyone in our profession intentionally deceives a customer, especially for monetary gain. Below is a link to the laws we must abide by. Every state has these.

California Fair Claims Settlement Practices

The British national health care system fits reasonably well into the notion of socialism, though it is not central control of a planned economy, it is a social welfare system. Social welfare and socialism may be theoretically related, but to call a social welfare system an element of socialism is a skewing of the concept.

The U.S. insurance industry is not socialist in an relevant meaning of the term. It is a pooling of resources in anticipation of payout. But so is the stock market. Does that make Wall Street a socialist institution???

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.

I tend to agree with NWP, for insurance to be inherently socialist, I think it would have to be state or at least community sponsored and mandated to include all citizens of said state/community. Insurance is strictly a pay for service business arrangement.

Who would imagined this topic would last so long, and have such a wonderful discussion.... go figure.

Anyway....
The topic title used the word "socialist"--- and we are debating "socialism."

Are the words interchangeable in meaning? IMO no. Lots of people are called socialist who do not propose classical socialism. IN fact I would say it is a vanishingly small percentage of so called socialists who propose what bored has proposed as the definition of socialism. If I am wrong, I will accept evidence to the contrary.

So what/who is a socialist? Well that is not at all clear, it seems largely an eye of the beholder sort of thing.

In the broadest strokes perhaps perhaps "socialist" is a person or policy that moves in the direction of greater collectivism.

But even if we were to insist upon discussing "socialism," there are still problems of definition that go well beyond the wiki fragment that Bored posted. Those who read further into the article will encounter

"The socialist political movement includes a diverse array of political philosophies. Core dichotomies within the socialist movement include the distinction between reformism and revolutionary socialism and between state socialism and libertarian socialism. State socialism calls for the nationalisation of the means of production as a strategy for implementing socialism, while libertarian socialism opposes the use of state power – whether exercised through parliamentary politics or state-owned industry – as a means to achieve socialism.[11] Democratic socialism highlights the central role of democratic processes and political systems and is usually contrasted with non-democratic political movements that advocate socialism."

Just as there is no pure capitalism, no pure democracy, no perfect republic, no perfect free markets.... there is also no pure socialism.... unless someone can show where I am wrong in this.

Despite the lack of any pure free market, we can still discuss free market solutions. WHy is that possible if there is no perfect free market and the "free market solutions" would not come close to establishing a pure free market?

I would say the answer lies in the same reason we can discuss socialist without any suggestion of actually accomplishing the reality of pure socialism. it is the same reason why it makes sense to discuss whether insurance is or is not fundamentally SOCIALIST IN CONCEPTION... even without connecting the discussion to pure socialism.

----------

Regardless of where one comes out in that discussion, IMO the discussion itself illustrates a broader problem. If reasonable people can get caught up in such linguistic contortions about a subject that has little or no real impact..... consider the problems of having a meaningful discussion about emotionally loaded and politically important topics. Even among the best intentions people, there are innumerable ways for such discussions to become sidetracked or to spin chaotically out of control.