ALTRUISTIC EXPRESSION IN A CAPITALISTIC SOCIETY

“It will never happen to me” seems like a challenge to the fundamental premise of insurance. Young people are reluctant to sign up for health insurance. They know that the chances of them becoming sick or injured are small when compared to an elderly person. They also know that they earn less money starting a career than when they are older and established; therefore, the value of a dollar is greater for them when they are young. There is no question about the accuracy of those statements.

It should not surprise anyone to think that Obamcare will work best if everyone pays for insurance: car insurance, fire insurance, health insurance, you name it. There are those who would try to convince the young of hazards that do not exist to induce them to pay for insurance they don’t need. Of course, there are the unscrupulous, those who will create a false hazard such as the gangland protection insurance also applied in politics by threatened primary challenges with a different kind of premium—their vote. Just, as there are insurance companies that act dishonestly by charging unfairly, denying claims unfairly, and making outlandish profits and pay executives huge unearned salaries. Obamacare takes care of a lot of that. Nonetheless, regardless of the inflated hazards and the distortions of premiums, young people do not need health insurance as much as older people—it cost more to die than it cost to live. Again, there is no question about the accuracy of this statement.

In an equalitarian society, everyone benefit if everyone pays; that is what social insurance is. A family without children does not want to pay to educate other people’s children. Families that do not use public transportation do no want to pay to maintain railroads and airport control tower. People who do not own cars do not want to pay for highways. In addition, as just mentions, healthy people do not want to pay in insure unhealthy people. We can refer to these people as being selfish or greedy. For me this is at the heart of political debate not only in this country but also around the world.

In political terms, what do you think about helping someone else out of trouble? Even in the most conservative community, say one farmer’s barn burns down, the neighbors are there to help rebuild. Even in some cases, they are there to help build a barn just because a neighbor did not have one. Is that social insurance? There is innate altruism to some degree in almost all of us just as there is greed in all of us. Is altruism expressed only when we know who is hurting—only if the barn burnt down? Is greed only expressed when we take advantage of people who are hurting? Can we look at insurance companies as a form of altruistic expression in a capitalistic society? Would it be better society if we did?

Obviously insurance companies do not want to insure sick people, which points out that the argument is Jekyll-Hyde. Insurance companies put them selves in a tight spot philosophically. If they allowed it to happen, they could be a great advancement in social justice but if they don’t they are evil. However, they are without exception controlled by MBA’s; people who only see a bottom line and not the people in need. They want your premium payment but do not want to pay for your health care. Nevertheless, they want to rebuild your barn even if they do not know you—they w ant to do a good thing—but only if they can make a profit is a good thing but if the profit is excessive, it is a bad thing. I look at Obamacare as social engineering of manipulations that result in an altruistic program, which is a good thing. Those who oppose it are the ones who lack a sense of equalitarianism. By their opposition to it, they have proved themselves Republicans. 

URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated