Do anarchists have insurance?

Question

Actually, i have a few related questions.

To a degree, insurance seems like just another capitalist scam. It goes without saying that the primary function of insurance companies, like any company, is to make a profit, not to help people. Obviously it is unethical to participate in schemes that invest in the stock market like 401(k), but what are the alternatives? The mutual aid societies of centuries past have either died out or mutated into capitalist models. Is it wiser to save a portion of one's income for the possibility of a broken leg or flooded basement than give it to an insurance company? It is possible or desirable to evade the state's attempts to force one into buying insurance (auto insurance, the recent health care legislation in the USA and Massachusetts, etc.)?

Comments

I'm a Laissez-faire capitalist Anarchist but I'll still respond.. capitalist pig that I am and all.. (lulz)

I think an Anarchist breaks every dependence and power over themselves that they can. They laugh at the TSA, Homeland Security, and the police not only because they realize that such institutions are asinine, but even the reason for their existence is asinine. There is no such thing as perfect security. No matter what. It doesn't exist.

Insurance in that light is definitely a scam between the state, the doctors, and itself. Whenever possible we should starve out the beast and not feed into it. But I'm of the view that Anarchy is not going to come about because a small group of men got violent for a bit or did without health care. They have the means to deal with that. It's a bit like someone telling you.. a diet is not enough, you need to change your permanent eating habits. Well, a revolt now and then is not enough. We need an absolute change of mentality. We shouldn't feed the system, wherever possible. On the other hand, is the Anarchist way of life really any closer because we go into the doctor uninsured for a broken leg if we still have to go?

Until we educate ourselves to the point that we can break our dependence and take a sort of Patch Adams "Anyone can be a doctor" approach to medicine, we can't be free of it. But so long as we still need Their doctors we will still need Their insurance. So the next question should be.. how to start winning doctors over to Anarchy and dismantling that infrastructure.. hmmm..

---

medicine and health care not as an idea or concept but as actual institutions of social control! look how afraid people are because the proliferation of a medicalized, health-addicted mentalities of dependency and pseudo-security (aka, well-being). f this statism call health care!

---

Where I live, you are forced by the law to take an insurance if you take an appartement or a new car. You are supposed to do it also to complete medical insurance (even you don't have money).

You can avoid it by just not doing it if you have an appartement and never took one cause the owner or the agency who manage the place didn't ask you, or when you buy a car on second hand.

Most of the time nothing happens.  For cars if you break something with it you would have to pay everything by yourself, which is very problematic (but I don't have car, so I don't give a damn). And your licence can be canceled if you drive without insurance.

For the rest I think it's ok.

I'm against the principle of insurance but I took the minimum one for my flat cause I was forced in, and so I won't pay much if something like a accident destroy my flat.

I'm pretty okay with what other people said about dependence to medical and health care institutions, that are also institutions of social controll. But that being said, in the actual situation, I won't advice a friend or comrad that has a serious desease to only rely on DIY health care stuff. And I think that we also may be vigilant with some "anti-medics" speeches that sometimes confine to obscurantism. For example some deep ecologists talking about curing cancer or other serious sickness with herbs, oils and fruits... Which make me pretty nervous.

Answer 1

I do.

Comments

do you want to explain why? is it a conflict for you? how do you respond to the text of the question (vs just the headline)?

---

As enkidu suggested, it is disadvantageous to avoid insurance because there are--at present--no viable alternatives. So, because it is in my interest to have insurance right now, I have it.

I recognize the corruption of such companies and I object to their corporatist, hierarchical structure; and I detest being forced into buying insurance by the gov't. But if I break my leg (anent enkidu's example) and have to pay out of pocket for the treatment (I don't have a high-paying job), who am I really hurting by avoiding an insurance company's bill?

I rather like the mutual aid/fraternal organizations of the past. I think setups such as these would be incredibly useful in this day and age. But they were crushed by the welfare state, gov't regulations, and corporate interests. So, until I see an opening to help start or join such a group, I'll continue to patronize my insurer.

Answer 2

The only insurance I have is the minimum requirement of liability insurance as prescribed by law for my car. I ultimately would like to not buy that either, but I haven't figured out how I will accomplish that or when. I do, however, see myself eliminating it in the future. I like this question if for no other reason than it has caused me to think more about how much I want to do that.

I have ideas and some experience with alternatives, or minimally, different ways of looking at the "problem" of insurance, but I'll comment on those later.