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!

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. Moreover, I do not believe in morality as a binding objective valuation: 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.