This concept is Marxist. You wouldn't think so, but the definition fits.

Notice, I'm not saying Socialist. I'm saying Marxist because the concept is a mirror image of that Marx line in the Gotha Programme ("From each according to his abilities to each according to his needs." )

The concept is insurance. ALL insurance.
You might have heard all kinds of definitions of it, but there is only ONE: A pot of money a large number of people contribute to, with the idea that some people take from it for an unexpected illness or death.
(That is the ONLY correct definition of insurance. I used to be licensed to sell health and life in Florida and had to pass the state exam. I REALLY didn't know the correct definition was that.)
From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.

I didn't say Socialist because Socialism is where government OWNS all the means of production in a country. That is the proper definition.
(No, it's not government spending. You can't say paying taxes to maintain roads or pay cop salaries is Socialism.)

Notice, I'm not condemning the concept. Not saying if it is right or wrong, good or evil. Insurance is a part of our life.

(By the way, Social Security is NOT an insurance program, as much as recipients would give you a black eye if you suggest it is. According to the original administrators of Social Security, they argued before the Supreme Court that Social Security was a WELFARE program that is financed by government's ability to tax the population. If anything, Social Security as a financial tool would most likely resemble a life annuity in the private sector. I used to sell those as well. You have to be life licensed to sell them if they come from a life insurance company.)

Again, this isn't a political debate. This is a fact, according to the material. And again, I'm not knocking it. Just giving the right definition.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

ArishMell · 70-79, M

An insurance company - covering any area not just health - charging by abilities to pay. Now there's a thing.

That would raise a hollow laugh in the UK where all the car and home insurers have greatly increased their premiums for no clear reason... other than bigger profits of course..

That misunderstanding about Social Security in the USA has its UK parallel where you often hear people complain about not enough pension or long NHS waiting-times parroting the myth, "I've paid into it all my working life!"

No you haven't!

The myth probably arose because when employed we pay two sets of tax, above a certain low-pay threshold. One is Income Tax: clear and self-explanatory. The other is called National Insurance, and that's likely the source of the confusion because it is a tax not an insurance policy!

When established NI was intended to support the National Health Service, State Pension and other State Benefits but was still not "insurance". Since then it became just another type of Income Tax, not "ring-fenced"; and those using those services were and still are paid from the taxes others are paying.

Most employed people are on a "Pay As You Earn" scheme by which the employer deducts the two taxes due by you according to your personal Tax Code and pay, plus any separate, company pension contributions, from your Gross Pay, and pays HMRC for you. Your pay-slip itemises the Gross Pay, deductions and Nett Pay: probably most employees in any but very small businesses are now paid monthly by direct-debit. Not cash or cheque in hand.

Reason10 · 70-79, M

@ArishMell

That would raise a hollow laugh in the UK where all the car and home insurers have greatly increased their premiums for no clear reason... other than bigger profits of course..

That might be the case in the UK (or what Archie Bunker referred to as A FAG COUNTRY). If property/casualty insurers are a monopoly in a market (which of course is ILLEGAL here in the US) your scenario might be possible.

Over here in the colonies, all insurance companies are required by law to maintain a "legal reserve" of funds, for the purpose of paying out claims. The companies' actuaries have to determine and predict how much money will have to be paid out of that legal reserve, (this involves of course computing the cost of repairs, the cost of parts, the region of the country, a person's driving record). Those actuaries have to be precise because if they go too low the government shuts them down. If they go too high, they lose customers in a competitive market.

ArishMell · 70-79, M

@Reason10 I have no idea what F.A.G. stands for, nor who is this Bunker bloke; but the UK's laws concerning insurance are probably similar to those in the USA - not least due to the international nature of the money trade behind it all.

They are not in a monopoly in the UK either. They do compete, and another forum I use recently highlighted just how varied premiums can be for the same cover of the same buyer shopping around.

Even so most of them have greatly increased their premiums, well beyond what seems realistic. Any insurer is in business to make money!

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

ElwoodBlues · M

@ArishMell Seems unReason was throwing personal insults at you because he doesn't have an adequate response. Now he is throwing around buzzwords in an attempt to bluff and bully you out of the debate. Behind the bluffing is a pretense that the US insurance market is highly efficient, and competition keeps all prices low. Don't be bluffed; car insurance rates jumped over here as well.

In 2023, the average U.S. rate for full auto coverage rose to $2,019 per year, up 24% from $1,633 in 2022 and nearly 29% from 1,567 the prior year,

Car insurance rates jump 26% across the U.S. in 2024, report shows

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/car-insurance-rates-2024-inflation-climate-change-bankrate-report/

Up 24% in 2023; up another 26% this year; yeah we're getting big profit taking too.

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

ArishMell · 70-79, M

@ElwoodBlues His responses don't exactly do him any good...

Those car insurance increase rates are broadly similar to those in the UK. They have tried to blame it, here at least, on the rise in parts prices and labour charges, but that is not the whole story. In the UK many of the insurers also cover homes and they are probably loading all premiums to cover an unusually high number of flood-damage claims.

.
I don't know if health-insurance costs here have similarly risen because I do not use private health-care - I can't afford that! There are plenty who do use private health-care paid by commercial insurance, but it is not cheap and no doubt hedged with all sort of restrictions and conditions.

The National Health Service does contract some of its work, mainly elective surgery and dental treatment, to private companies but if you are an NHS patient the hospital treatment is still free to you. You pay some of the dental costs though.

Prescription medicines are also paid for partly by the patient, until age 60 when they become free to the patient. That did surprise me when I went to collect some medicine just after my 60th birthday, and the pharmacist told me I no longer pay for them! The standard fee, which goes to the NHS not the pharmacist, was £7 as I recall last paying but it was that for all medicines and can't have been the full price.