El Cáncer de los seguros/en

De Demarquía Planetaria

Shocking Revelations About Insurance That Show How the System Really Works

We've all grown up with the idea that insurance is a pillar of financial security. We take out policies thinking we're buying "peace of mind," but this narrative hides a much darker reality. The private insurance system has become a parasitic economic cancer, a mechanism for the massive extraction of value that feeds on fear and vulnerability

The industry's true business model is not protectionism, but a complex machine that inflates the prices of everything we buy and directly benefits from our misfortune.

What if the system designed to protect us were actually one of the biggest burdens on our economy and well-being? Here are five revelations that expose how it really works.

1. Your Policy Is Designed to Fail You (That's the Business)

At the heart of the insurance industry lies a fundamental contradiction: its profits increase by collecting the maximum possible premiums and paying the minimum possible in claims. This creates a perverse incentive where the company's financial success is directly linked to the failure to deliver on its promise to protect the customer.

The real core business is not paying claims, but systematic denial . To achieve this, the insurance industry has perfected the art of denying legitimate coverage through a series of documented tactics:

  • Predatory Small Print: Exclusion clauses and incomprehensible technical language buried in contracts of dozens of pages to deny coverage for any technicality.
  • Deliberate Delays: Unnecessarily long investigation processes and repeated requests for documentation, designed to exhaust the claimant until they abandon the process.
  • Automatic Initial Denial: Use of programmed algorithms to automatically reject the first request, knowing that a large majority of customers will not appeal.
  • Prolonged litigation: Using their enormous legal power to intimidate and wear down clients, seeking "victory by attrition" instead of resolving the claim fairly.

It is a model that thrives precisely when it fails to fulfill its function, leaving people unprotected in their time of greatest need.

2. You pay a hidden "insurance tax" on absolutely everything.

In addition to the premiums you pay directly, every product and service you consume has a hidden insurance cost. This phenomenon, known as "Chain Price Inflation ," works like this: each link in the production chain adds the cost of its own policies to the price

For example: the manufacturer adds its liability insurance (+5%), the distributor adds its transport insurance (+3%), and the retailer adds its commercial insurance (+4%). These overlapping coverages accumulate, inflating the final cost for the consumer. The data reveals a shocking estimated overcharge:

  • Housing: +8-12%
  • Automobiles: +15-20%
  • Professional services: +10-20%
  • Food: +3-5%

A conservative estimate indicates that the average family pays €4,000 a year in these hidden costs, in addition to their own insurance premiums. Insurance thus becomes a universal private tax that makes life more expensive and reduces everyone's purchasing power.

3. Between 25 and 45 cents of every euro you pay is wasted

When you pay an insurance premium, an alarmingly large portion of your money isn't used to cover potential claims, but is instead diverted into an inflated structure that adds no value to your coverage. The figures are stark: between 25% and 45% of every euro you pay is wasted on valueless extraction.

This money is allocated to:

  • Bureaucratic administration: 15-20%
  • Marketing and advertising: 5-10%
  • Shareholder returns: 5-15%

To put this in perspective, efficient public systems operate with only 5-7% administrative costs. This systemic inefficiency has devastating human consequences, especially in healthcare, where "insured" individuals often cannot access the care they need.

"I have insurance, but I can't afford to use it because the deductible is $6,000 and my co-payments are 40%."

4. The industry doesn't sell security, it sells fear.

The insurance industry has built a "Fear Economy," investing between 50 and 70 billion US dollars annually in global advertising. Its messages are not designed to inform, but to maximize anxiety and create an artificial insecurity that only its product can "solve."

The ads exploit our worst fears: "Will you leave your family destitute?" or "A serious illness can ruin you financially."

Herein lies the central paradox: "The anxiety they sell is a direct product of the system they perpetuate ." In a society with genuine risk sharing, the financial threats they exploit in their marketing simply wouldn't exist. They're selling us a cure for a disease they themselves are spreading.

5. There Is a Radical Alternative: A World Without Premiums or Policies

Faced with this extraction system, there is a transformative alternative. A model based on two public and universal funds: the Common Health Fund (FSC) for health and the Solidarity Risk Fund (FSR) for everything else

These funds operate under revolutionary principles that eliminate the problems of the current system:

  • True mutualization: The risk is shared among everyone without intermediaries. We are all 100% co-owners of both funds , not mere clients.
  • Automatic financing: There are no individual premiums. Funds are financed through mechanisms such as the Common Asset Use Royalty (RUAC) , eliminating bureaucracy.
  • Universal coverage: Everyone is automatically covered, with no exclusions for "pre-existing conditions" or negative histories.
  • The right incentives: The goal of the system is to prevent risks in order to reduce common costs, not to profit from claims.

The impact would be immense: the elimination of a parasitic extraction of $1.5-2 trillion a year , the equivalent of 2-3% of global GDP , and the possibility of living without the constant fear of financial ruin from illness or accident.

Conclusion: From False Solidarity to Real Security

The revelations are clear: the private insurance system is not a pillar of security, but a system that extracts massively without creating value, artificially inflates prices, systematically denies coverage, and markets fear to maximize profits.

"The difference between FSC/FSR and private insurance is not just one of efficiency or cost. It is the difference between a system designed to serve humanity and one designed to exploit it. It is the difference between living with dignity and living in constant fear."

The evidence is overwhelming. Therefore, the question we must ask ourselves is no longer whether we can afford this transition.

"The question is not whether we can afford to eliminate private insurance. The question is: How much longer can we afford to maintain this parasitic drain on resources that impoverishes us, terrifies us, and robs us of our freedom?"

Value Proposition: Innovation without Barriers with the FSC and FSR Dual System

1. Introduction: Redefining the Playing Field for Innovation

In today's entrepreneurial ecosystem, the debate about success focuses almost exclusively on talent, disruptive technology, and access to capital. However, for entrepreneurs, innovators, and venture capitalists, there is an economic cancer, a systemic and often invisible brake that limits the true potential of innovation: the private insurance model. This system, whose theoretical function is to mutualize risk, has become, in practice, a mechanism for the massive extraction of value without equivalent creation. It is a structural barrier that penalizes experimentation, drains vital resources, and protects established players. This paper presents a fundamental alternative—the dual system of the Common Health Fund (CHF) and the Solidarity Risk Fund (SRF)—designed to eradicate this cancer and create an optimal environment for large-scale growth, experimentation, and progress. We will then analyze in depth how the traditional insurance paradigm not only fails in its purpose but actively penalizes advancement.

2. The Silent Brake on Progress: How Private Insurance Stifles Innovation

Far from being an enabler, the private insurance system operates as a parasitic tax and a massive value extractor. Its business model is based on a perverse structural contradiction: collecting the maximum possible premiums and paying the minimum possible in claims . This logic generates profound distortions that impose disproportionate burdens on new ventures and disruptive technologies. This section breaks down the three main mechanisms through which this negative impact manifests itself, stifling dynamism and innovation.

The first and most fundamental mechanism is the structural penalty for novelty . The private insurance model assigns higher premiums to new technologies simply because they represent an "unknown risk." Conversely, it favors traditional and established methods, whose "known risk" allows for lower premiums. This inherent bias creates a structural brake on technological progress, making the adoption of innovations artificially more costly and financially risky.

Secondly, the system imposes a massive drain on productive capital . The amount of resources diverted from the real economy to this parasitic intermediation is staggering. The figures reveal an industry focused more on extraction than on value creation.

  • Wasteful spending: For every euro paid in premiums, between 25% and 45% is diverted to cover administrative costs, marketing, and shareholder profits, instead of being used to pay actual claims. This contrasts sharply with efficient public systems that operate with only 5-10% administrative costs.
  • Global magnitude: Worldwide, this extraction of value without a productive counterpart is estimated at between $1.5 and $2 trillion annually , capital that could finance countless R&D projects and business growth.
  • Impact on prices: This cost cascades throughout the economy, generating a hidden surcharge on goods and services. The clearest examples are seen in the construction sector, with a surcharge of 15-25% , and in professional services, with 10-20% .

Ultimately, these inflated costs and value extraction act as an artificial barrier to entry that severely distorts the market. Large corporations can absorb and amortize these hedging costs, but for startups and small businesses, prohibitive premiums can be an insurmountable obstacle. This protects incumbents, reduces competition, and crushes entrepreneurs before they even have a chance to get started. Clearly, unlocking innovative potential requires a new paradigm for risk management.

3. A New Operating System for Risk: The Advantage of the FSC and FSR Duo

The dual system of the Common Health Fund (CHF) and the Solidarity Risk Fund (SRF) represents a fundamental solution that replaces the extractive model with one of genuine mutualization and radical efficiency. This is not a simple reform, but a complete redesign of the risk management infrastructure, realigning incentives to actively foster innovation rather than penalize it.

The FSR Innovation Engine: Key Mechanisms for Entrepreneurs

The FSR dismantles the barriers that private insurance imposes on entrepreneurs through three transformative mechanisms:

1. Automatic Coverage Without Individual Policies: For a startup, the process of purchasing, negotiating, and renewing multiple insurance policies is an immense administrative, legal, and financial burden. FSR completely eliminates this process. Coverage is automatically activated upon project registration, freeing up crucial time and resources that can be redirected to product development and business growth.

2. Common Risk Coefficient (CRC): Instead of the opaque and often arbitrary premiums of the private system, the FSR uses a Common Risk Coefficient. This coefficient is transparent, auditable, and based on real historical data from the sector, adjusted for the prevention measures implemented. For example, a construction project might have a base CRC of 3.5%, but reduce it to 1.8% by implementing prevention sensors and certified safety protocols. This creates a direct and transparent relationship between investment in safety and the reduction of financial risk.

3. Trust Capital: This mechanism is key to fostering experimentation. Trust Capital rewards responsible behavior and investment in prevention over time. Crucially, it distinguishes between deliberate negligence and the "honest failures" inherent in innovation. By not permanently punishing the inevitable mistakes made in the pursuit of breakthroughs, it encourages bold experimentation.

The FSC Catalyst: Unleashing Human Capital

Complementing the FSR, the Common Health Fund (CHF) acts as a powerful catalyst for innovation by unlocking the most valuable resource in any ecosystem: talent. By providing universal and automatic health coverage, the CHF eliminates two critical burdens for entrepreneurs:

  • The cost and complexity of offering health insurance to employees is one of the biggest barriers to hiring in the early stages of a startup.
  • The phenomenon of "employment slavery ," where potential talent remains trapped in large corporations for fear of losing health insurance for themselves and their families. The FSC breaks these "golden chains," allowing top talent to join innovative projects without the fear of financial ruin due to illness—a reality that, in privatized systems, leads to hundreds of thousands of bankruptcies annually.

These mechanisms are not mere theoretical improvements; they translate directly into tangible economic results and a decisive competitive advantage for investors and founders.

4. Return on Investment (ROI) for Innovators and Investors

The shift from the private insurance system to the dual FSC and FSR model is not only a social improvement, but also an economic strategy with a clear and measurable return on investment for the startup and venture capital ecosystem. The direct benefits that this new operating system for risk offers to those who invest in and build the future are detailed below

1. Capital Release for Growth: By eliminating the 25-45% value extraction inherent in the private sector model—a capital drain amounting to between $1.5 and $2 trillion annually globally —a massive volume of capital is freed up. For a startup, this capital ceases to be unproductive overhead and becomes direct investment in value-generating areas: product development, talent acquisition, and R&D. At the macroeconomic level, eliminating hidden markups throughout the supply chain generates massive benign deflation, increasing the purchasing power of every euro invested and accelerating the growth cycle.

2. Risk Reduction in Experimentation: The FSR system creates a structurally safer and more cost-effective environment for radical innovation. By not penalizing "unknown risk" with prohibitive premiums and by actively incentivizing prevention through the Common Risk Coefficient (CRC) and Trust Capital, the cost of experimenting with new technologies and business models is dramatically reduced. Founders can take calculated risks knowing that honest failures will not be punished with insurmountable financial burdens, fostering a culture of boldness and exploration essential for disruptive breakthroughs.

3. Creating a Hyperdynamic Market: Artificial barriers to entry created by high insurance costs protect large corporations and limit competition. By removing these barriers, the FSC and FSR system levels the playing field. This fosters an explosion in startup creation, as entrepreneurs can launch with lower fixed costs and greater security. For venture capital, this hyperdynamic environment translates into a much richer, more diverse, and higher-quality deal flow, increasing the likelihood of finding and backing tomorrow's market leaders.

These direct economic benefits transform risk management from an unavoidable cost into a strategic advantage, laying the foundation for a much more ambitious vision of entrepreneurship.

5. Conclusion: The Platform for the Next Generation of Entrepreneurship

The analysis is unequivocal: the private insurance system is an obsolete operating system that functions by commodifying fear. Its inherent structure not only extracts value from the economy but also acts as a deliberate brake on progress, punishing innovation and protecting established players. For entrepreneurs and visionaries seeking to build the future, operating within this paradigm is like trying to run with an anchor tied to your foot

The dual FSC and FSR system is not simply a more efficient or fairer alternative. It is the fundamental infrastructure needed to unleash a new era of innovation. By replacing parasitic extraction with genuine mutualization and opacity with radical transparency, a platform is created where risk is managed intelligently and collectively. The paralyzing fear of financial ruin from accident or illness is eliminated, freeing up human and financial capital to focus on solving major challenges. This is the fundamental difference between a system designed to extract from humanity and one designed to serve it.

In the Demarchy, uncertainty ceases to be a commodity and becomes a collective challenge that we face together, with transparency and true solidarity.

Comparative Analysis Report: Private Insurance vs. Democratic Mutualization Models

1.0 Structural Analysis of the Private Insurance Model

This initial section focuses on diagnosing the structural flaws in the private insurance business model, breaking down its incentives and operating costs based on the evidence provided. The source text identifies this model as a parasitic element within the host economy; therefore, a thorough understanding of its mechanisms is essential to assess both its efficiency and its socioeconomic impact, and to contextualize the need to explore alternatives. The analysis reveals a system whose inherent commercial objectives directly conflict with its stated social function.

1.1 The Fundamental Contradiction of the Model

The private insurance model operates under an inherent structural contradiction: its economic viability depends on maximizing premium income while minimizing claims payments. This conflict of interest places the insurer in an antagonistic position vis-à-vis its client. The objective of maximizing shareholder profits directly opposes the function of paying claims fairly and promptly, creating a structural perversion where the system optimizes its profitability precisely to the extent that it fails in its stated social function

1.2 Quantification of Extraction Costs

The business model not only presents a theoretical contradiction, but also generates quantifiable operating and extraction costs that deviate from the actual risk coverage. The following table breaks down the typical distribution of premiums paid by consumers.

Concept Premium Percentage
Claims Actually Paid 60-75%
Bureaucratic administration 15-20%
Marketing and advertising 5-10%
Shareholder Benefits 5-15%
Total No Value Extraction 25-45%

As can be seen, a significant portion of each euro paid in premiums, between 25% and 45%, is not used to cover claims, but rather to sustain a structure of intermediation, marketing, and corporate profits. This extraction is reflected in the profits of the major global insurers, which amount to between $150 and $200 billion annually, and in executive salaries that reach $10 to $50 million annually. This extraction at the individual policy level, when aggregated on a global scale, translates into the removal of $1.5 to $2 trillion annually from the productive economy, as will be detailed in section 3.1

1.3 The Phenomenon of "Risk Inflation"

Beyond direct profit extraction, the private insurance model generates systemic cost inflation throughout the economy through several interconnected mechanisms. This phenomenon, known as "risk inflation," artificially increases the price of goods and services.

  1. Price Inflation in the Supply Chain : Each actor in a production chain (manufacturer, distributor, retailer) adds the cost of their multiple insurance policies to the price of their product or service. These overlapping coverages result in a cumulative surcharge that the end consumer pays, estimated at an additional 12-15% on the selling price.
  2. Defensive Medicine : In the healthcare sector, the fear of malpractice lawsuits, exacerbated by the insurance system, leads medical professionals to order unnecessary tests and treatments. This practice, designed for the physician's legal protection rather than the patient's benefit, generates an additional $45-60 billion annually in the U.S. and inflates overall medical costs by 10-15% .
  3. Overburdened Construction : Large construction and infrastructure projects accumulate multiple layers of mandatory insurance (liability, construction insurance, performance bonds), which together represent between 15% and 25% of the total project cost.
  4. Innovation Distortion : The system penalizes innovation by assigning higher premiums to new technologies considered to have "unknown risk," while favoring traditional methods with "known risk." This creates a structural barrier to technological progress and the adoption of more efficient or safer solutions.

1.4 Operational Tactics for Denial of Coverage

Analysis of the source text indicates that the "real core business" of the insurance industry is not paying claims, but developing sophisticated tactics to deny them. These operational practices are designed to minimize payouts and maximize profits

  1. Predatory Fine Print : Lengthy contracts written in deliberately incomprehensible technical language are used to conceal exclusion clauses. Concepts such as "pre-existing conditions" are interpreted arbitrarily and restrictively to deny coverage.
  2. Deliberate Delays : Investigations are unnecessarily prolonged and additional documents are repeatedly requested with the aim of exhausting the claimant, both financially and emotionally, until they give up their claim.
  3. Initial Automatic Denial : Algorithms are programmed to automatically reject the first claim request. This tactic is based on the fact that between 60% and 70% of claimants do not appeal an initial denial, generating massive savings for the company.
  4. Divestment in Large Cases : When faced with high-cost claims, insurers resort to protracted litigation, leveraging their vast legal resources to intimidate and wear down individual claimants, achieving a "win by attrition" when the individual is forced to give up.

The human cost of this systematic denial is brutally evident in the US health sector, where private intermediation correlates with 45,000 annual deaths due to lack of insurance or inadequate coverage and causes 530,000 family bankruptcies each year due to medical debt, demonstrating the lethal consequences of a system that prioritizes profit over life.

These structural and operational tactical inefficiencies of the private model lay the groundwork for considering an alternative system, designed to overcome these fundamental flaws.

2.0 The Alternative Demarchical Model: FSC and FSR Mutualization Funds

In contrast to the private insurance model, the Planetary Demarchy proposal presents an alternative system that seeks to completely replace insurance intermediation. This model is structured through a dual system of specialized funds: the Common Health Fund (CHF) and the Solidarity Risk Fund (SRF). Both are designed to eliminate value extraction, align incentives with prevention, and mutualize risk in a genuine and efficient manner

2.1 Structure and Fundamental Principles

The demarquic system divides risk management into two clearly defined areas, each managed by a fund with a specific mandate.

Fund Scope of Coverage Operating Principle
Common Health Fund (FSC) Health exclusively: medical care, hospitalization, medications, prevention and research. Universal and free coverage at the point of service.
Solidarity Risk Fund (FSR) All other risks: property (home, vehicles), civil liability, accidents, catastrophes, occupational risks. Automatic coverage with a smart deductible.

Despite their different scopes, both funds operate under a set of five common principles that radically distinguish them from the private model:

  1. True Risk Mutualization : Instead of fragmented individual policies, all participants are considered co-owners of the funds. Risk is shared collectively without intermediaries profiting from the process.
  2. Automatic Financing without Premiums : Funds are not financed through individual premiums, but through automatic flows from the demarc economic system, such as the Common Asset Use Royalty (CUAR) and the 50/50 Universal Partnership . This eliminates the bureaucracy of recruitment, renewal, and marketing.
  3. Universal Automatic Coverage : Coverage is not purchased, but is an inherent right. All citizens are covered by the FSC and all projects registered in the system are covered by the FSR, eliminating exclusions based on "pre-existing conditions" or "high-risk" profiles.
  4. Radical Transparency : All claims statistics, coverage criteria, and expert assessment processes are public and auditable by the community, eliminating by design tactics such as "Predatory Fine Print" and opaque denials previously analyzed.
  5. Aligned Incentives: Prevention over Payment : The system's objective is not to manage claims, but to prevent them. Any improvement in prevention reduces costs for the entire community, directly benefiting everyone, reversing the logic of "Risk Inflation" and the fundamental contradiction of the private model.

2.2 Operation of the Common Health Fund (CHF)

The FSC is designed to manage health exclusively, completely eliminating the private health insurance industry

  • Main Features :
    • Universal and automatic coverage for all citizens.
    • Free service at the point of service, with no co-payments, deductibles, or invoices.
    • Elimination of the bureaucracy of prior authorizations and claims.
    • Management by medical experts, not financial administrators.
    • Strong focus on preventative health to reduce the incidence of disease.
  • Projected Impact : A drastic reduction in administrative costs is estimated, to 5-7% of total expenditure, compared to 30-35% in the US private system. This is achieved by eliminating marketing, shareholder profits, and billing bureaucracy. The result is universal access to healthcare without the risk of financial ruin and a release of $700-900 billion annually currently extracted from the sector.

2.3 Operation of the Solidarity Risk Fund (SRF)

The FSR is responsible for pooling all non-health risks, from property and civil liability to natural disasters, through innovative mechanisms.

  • Common Risk Coefficient (CRC) :
    • Replace opaque premiums with a public and auditable coefficient.
    • It is calculated based on the actual historical accident rate of a sector or activity.
    • It adjusts dynamically based on the demonstrated investment in prevention and safety measures.
    • This coefficient does not define a premium to be paid, but the level of the deductible applicable in case of an accident.
  • Trust Capital :
    • It is a dynamic reputation system where each individual or project accumulates a history.
    • Responsible behavior and investment in prevention increase Confidence Capital, which in turn reduces the franchise (CRC).
    • Proven negligence results in a temporary penalty, encouraging correction and transparency rather than permanent punishment.
  • Expertise and Operations :
    • The expert assessment processes combine AI with independent experts and are completely transparent and traceable.
    • The conflict of interest is eliminated, since there is no incentive to deny legitimate claims.
    • Policies, annual renewals, and associated paperwork are completely eliminated. Coverage is automatic upon registering an asset or project in the system.

This operational design transforms risk management into a collaborative and preventive system, laying the foundation for a comparative analysis of its impacts against the traditional model.

3.0 Comparative Analysis of Socioeconomic Impacts

This section forms the core of the report, directly contrasting the economic results, operational efficiency, and social effects of both models. By comparing quantitative and qualitative metrics extracted from the source text, it seeks to provide a clear view of the fundamental differences between a system based on profit extraction and one based on genuine risk sharing

3.1 Impact on Economic Efficiency

The most notable difference between the two systems lies in how they manage and distribute economic resources. The private model is characterized by the extraction of value, while the demarc model seeks its liberation and redirection.

Economic Metrics Private Insurance System Demarchic System (FSC/FSR)
Value Stream Extraction of $1.5-2 trillion/year with no equivalent value Release and redirection of resources towards productive investment and Planetary Dividend
Effect on Prices Cascading price inflation (7-9% in consumer goods, 15-25% in construction) Massive benign deflation across the economy
Administrative Costs 25-45% of premiums (30-35% in health) 5-7% of operating costs

3.2 Comparison in the Health Sector

The healthcare sector offers an irrefutable empirical case study contrasting the results of a private intermediation system with those of a public mutualization system. A comparison between the United States (private) and the United Kingdom (public) reveals a marked disparity in costs, efficiency, and health outcomes.

Metric USA (Private) UK (Public)
Per capita spending $12,914 $5,387
% of GDP in health 18.3% 12.0%
Life expectancy 78.9 years 81.3 years
Infant mortality 5.4/1000 3.8/1000
Administrative costs 30-35% 5-7%
Medical bankruptcies 530,000/year ~0
Citizen satisfaction 45-55% 65-75%

The evidence shows that the private system is not only significantly more expensive, but also produces worse health outcomes and generates immense financial insecurity, as evidenced by the more than half a million annual bankruptcies due to medical debt in the United States.

3.3 Psychological and Social Impact

Beyond the numbers, both models promote radically different social and psychological climates

The Economics of Fear

The private model is based on the commercialization of fear. The industry invests between 50 and 70 billion dollars annually in advertising designed to maximize anxiety about potential misfortunes. This strategy creates an artificial demand for "peace of mind" that only the system itself can sell. The result is a society under chronic financial stress , where the fear of economic ruin due to illness or accident is constant, even for those who are insured.

Systemic Security

The goal of the demarc model is diametrically opposed: to build systemic security that allows people to "Live Without Fear ." By guaranteeing universal coverage and eliminating the threat of financial ruin from causes beyond individual control, it seeks to eradicate economic anxiety as the driving force of the system. Security ceases to be a product that is bought and becomes an intrinsic characteristic of the social structure

The feasibility of transitioning from a fear-based model to a security-based model is a key issue that will be addressed in the next section.

4.0 Implementation Feasibility and Objection Analysis

Assessing the viability of any alternative model is a crucial step. It is not enough for a proposal to be theoretically superior; it must have a plausible roadmap for its implementation and be able to address fundamental objections and criticisms. This section addresses the transition plan proposed by the demarchic model and analyzes responses to the most common objections, based on arguments provided in the source.

4.1 Transition Roadmap

The implementation of the FSC/FSR system is not conceived as an abrupt change, but as a gradual and phased process, designed to demonstrate its effectiveness empirically and facilitate an orderly migration.

  1. Phase 1: Bioregional Pilots (Years 1-5) : The transition would begin with the creation of experimental funds at the local or bioregional scale. These FSC and FSR pilots would operate in parallel with the existing private system, allowing for a direct comparison of costs and efficiency. The objective is to empirically demonstrate savings and service improvements.
  2. Phase 2: Sectoral Expansion (Years 5-15) : With the proven success of the pilot programs, the bioregional funds would be consolidated and interconnected. A massive voluntary migration of individuals and companies from private insurance to the mutual system would be expected, attracted by the evidence of its benefits. This would generate direct competition which, according to the source, would lead to the collapse of private insurers due to economic unviability.
  3. Phase 3: Complete Transition (Years 15-30) : In the final phase, FSC and FSR funds would operate on a global scale, having almost completely replaced the private insurance industry. The result would be the global mutualization of risk and the end of value extraction associated with the previous model.

4.2 Responding to Common Objections

The proposed model faces several standard criticisms, to which the source text offers specific counterarguments

  • Objection: "Without a profit incentive, the system will be inefficient"
    • Response Argument: Empirical evidence, particularly in the healthcare sector, demonstrates the opposite. Public systems operate with administrative costs of 5-7%, while private systems reach 30-35%. The "profit incentive" in insurance does not promote operational efficiency, but rather the denial of coverage. FSC/FSR systems would be more efficient by eliminating massive marketing costs, shareholder benefits, and individual policy bureaucracy, and by focusing on prevention to reduce overall claims.
  • Objection: "There will be massive fraud without private oversight"
    • Response Argument: The FSC and FSR systems propose a superior supervisory model based on radical transparency. Every claim would be public and auditable, with AI detecting anomalous patterns and assessments distributed by independent experts. Unlike the current system, where insurers conceal information and major frauds are "legal" (fine print), this model aligns community incentives to monitor fraud, as it would directly impact the collective dividend.
  • Objection: "Moral hazard will make people careless"
    • Response Argument: The FSR system is specifically designed to counteract moral hazard with better incentives. The "smart franchise" and "Trust Capital" directly reward responsible behavior and investment in prevention. In contrast, the current system presents an equal or greater moral hazard, plus "reverse moral hazard," where high co-payments and deductibles discourage people from seeking preventive or early care, increasing long-term costs.
  • Objection: "It's socialism/communism that eliminates freedom"
    • Response Argument: It is argued that the FSC/FSR system increases real freedom. It eliminates the obligation to purchase predatory policies from oligopolies, frees up between 25% and 45% of the resources that were previously extracted, and decouples health coverage from employment (as in the US), ending "employment slavery." The true lack of freedom, according to this view, is living with the constant fear of financial ruin and being bound by opaque contracts.
  • Objection: "The rich will subsidize the poor/irresponsible"
    • Response Argument: This phenomenon already occurs in the current system, albeit in a more expensive and inefficient way, where prudent customers subsidize inefficiency, fraud, and industry profits. In the FSC/FSR model, mutualization is genuine and more efficient (costs of 5-7%). The Trust Capital system differentiates responsible actors from negligent ones. Furthermore, the wealthy also benefit from a more dynamic economy, lower prices across all sectors, and greater social stability stemming from collective security.

After analyzing the feasibility and objections, the report moves on to its final conclusions, summarizing the findings of the comparative analysis.

5.0 Conclusion

This comparative analysis has highlighted the profound structural, economic, and social divergences between the private insurance model and the proposed demarc mutualization system. The central criticism of the private insurance system is based on its inherent contradiction: a business model that thrives on minimizing claims payouts, leading to massive value extraction (estimated at $1.5–2 trillion annually), artificial cost inflation across the economy, and the systematic marketing of fear as a marketing tool. The result is a system that, under the promise of security, generates chronic financial stress and often fails in its fundamental purpose in times of greatest need

In contrast, the alternative model of FSC and FSR funds is defined by the genuine mutualization of risk on a collective scale, the complete elimination of extractive intermediaries, and a fundamental realignment of incentives toward prevention rather than reactive payouts. Through automated coverage, radical transparency, and the creation of mechanisms like Trust Capital, it seeks to build systemic security that is not only drastically more efficient in economic terms but also aims to eradicate the threat of financial ruin due to misfortune. Ultimately, the analysis reveals that the private insurance model is not simply an inefficient system but a systemic value-extraction mechanism that acts as a metastatic brake on the economic health and psychological well-being of society. "The difference between FSC/FSR and private insurance is not just one of efficiency or cost. It is the difference between a system designed to serve humanity and one designed to exploit it. It is the difference between living with dignity and living in constant fear." Private insurance represents one of the most parasitic economic cancers of the current capitalist system. Its theoretical function—mutualizing risk—is necessary and valuable. But its practical implementation has become a mechanism for the massive extraction of value without equivalent creation.

The Diagnosis: A Pure Extraction Industry

The Fundamental Contradiction

Private insurance operates under a perverse structural contradiction:

Their business model is based on:

  • Collect the maximum possible premiums
  • Pay the minimum possible for claims
  • Deny coverage whenever they can find a technical excuse
  • Maximize profits by turning human fear into a commodity.

The inevitable result: An industry that thrives precisely when it does NOT fulfill its stated function of protecting people.

The Extraction Numbers

Artificially inflated operating costs:

  • 25-40% of premiums are diverted to administrative costs, marketing and profits
  • In sectors such as healthcare (USA), the extraction rate exceeds 30-35%.
  • Compared to efficient public systems that operate with 5-10% administrative costs

Obscene profits:

  • The 10 largest global insurers earn $150-200 billion in annual profits
  • CEOs of insurance companies: salaries of $10-50 million/year
  • Shareholders receive dividends while vital coverage is denied

The perverse calculation:

Concept Premium Percentage
Claims actually paid 60-75%
Bureaucratic Administration 15-20%
Marketing and Advertising 5-10%
Shareholder Benefits 5-15%
Total No Value Extraction 25-45%

Translation: For every €100 you pay, between €25-45 goes to intermediaries who contribute nothing to the real value of the coverage.

Risk Inflation

Insurance not only extracts value, it creates it artificially through systemic inflation:

1. Price Chain Inflation

Each link in the production chain adds the cost of its insurance to the final price:

  • The manufacturer adds their liability insurance → +5%
  • The distributor adds their transport insurance → +3%
  • The retailer adds its commercial insurance → +4%
  • Result: The end consumer pays 12-15% more for overlapping coverage

2. Defensive Medicine

In healthcare, fear of lawsuits leads to:

  • Unnecessary tests to "cover oneself legally"
  • Excessive treatments as a precaution
  • $45-60 billion/year in the US of defensive medical spending
  • Cost inflation of 10-15% without improvement in health outcomes

3. Overloaded Construction

In construction and infrastructure:

  • Professional liability insurance policies
  • Construction insurance
  • Performance bonds
  • 15-25% of the total cost of large projects

4. Innovation Distortion

Insurance companies penalize innovation:

  • New technologies = higher premiums ("unknown" risk)
  • Traditional methods = lower premiums ("known" risk)
  • Result: Structural brake on technological progress

Systematic Denial: The Real Core Business

The insurance industry has perfected the art of denying legitimate coverage :

Documented Tactics

1. Predatory Fine Print

  • Hidden exclusion clauses in 50+ page contracts
  • Deliberately incomprehensible technical language
  • "Pre-existing conditions" interpreted arbitrarily

2. Deliberate Delays

  • Unnecessarily Lengthy Investigations
  • Repeated Requests for Additional Documentation
  • Objective: To exhaust the claimant until they give up

3. Initial Automatic Denial

  • Algorithms configured to automatically deny first claim
  • 60-70% of claimants do not appeal after the first refusal
  • Massive savings for the insurer

4. Divestment in Large Cases

  • Prolonged litigation against claimants with expensive claims
  • Legal intimidation: corporate law firms vs. individuals
  • Victory by exhaustion : The claimant gives up before winning

The Case for Healthcare (USA)

The American health insurance system is the most brutal example:

  • 18% of GDP spent on health (twice that of comparable countries)
  • 45,000 deaths/year due to lack of insurance or inadequate coverage
  • 530,000 bankruptcies/year due to medical debt (67% of all bankruptcies)
  • 30 million without insurance, 70 million with insufficient coverage

"I have insurance, but I can't afford to use it because the deductible is $6,000 and my co-payments are 40%." — The reality for millions of "insured" Americans

The Global Economic Impact

Massive Value Extraction

Size of the global insurance industry:

  • $6-7 billion in annual premiums (2023)
  • $1.5-2 trillion extracted without creating equivalent value
  • Equivalent to 2-3% of global GDP diverted to parasitic intermediation

Sectoral distribution of extraction:

Sector Global Annual Premiums Estimated Extraction
Health $2.8 trillion $700-900 billion
Life $2.7 trillion $400-600 billion
Property/Accidents $2.3 trillion $450-650 billion
Other $0.5 trillion $100-150 billion
TOTAL $8.3 trillion $1.65-2.3 trillion

The Hidden Cost in Every Transaction

Insurance artificially inflates the price of practically everything:

  • Housing: +8-12% (mortgage insurance, home insurance, liability insurance)
  • Automobiles: +15-20% (mandatory insurance, GAP, protection)
  • Health: +25-40% in countries with dominant private insurance
  • Food: +3-5% (agricultural insurance, transport, liability)
  • Professional services: +10-20% (civil liability, malpractice)

Conservative calculation:

If an average family spends €40,000/year and the average insurance surcharge is 10%, they are paying €4,000/year in hidden insurance costs, in addition to the direct premiums they already pay

Market Distortion

Insurance creates artificial barriers to entry :

  • Entrepreneurs who cannot afford liability insurance
  • Innovators blocked by prohibitive premiums in new technologies
  • Small businesses crushed by hedging costs that large corporations amortize

Result: Market concentration, less competition, higher prices.

Psychological Cancer: Living with Commercialized Fear

The Economics of Fear

The insurance industry doesn't just sell protection, it sells fear .

  • $50-70 billion/year in global insurance advertising
  • Messages designed to maximize anxiety: "What if...?"
  • Creating artificial insecurity to sell "tranquility"

Examples of Predatory Marketing

  • Life insurance: "Will you leave your family destitute?"
  • Health insurance: "A serious illness can ruin you financially"
  • Home insurance: "Your house could burn down at any moment"
  • Travel insurance: "What if something happens to you far from home?"

The paradox: The anxiety they sell is a direct product of the system they perpetuate .

In a society with true mutualization of risk (as proposed by Planetary Demarchy ), these financial threats would simply not exist .

Chronic Financial Stress

Families live under constant pressure:

  • Decision between paying for insurance or food/housing
  • Fear of getting sick because insurance doesn't cover everything
  • Anxiety about policy renewals with increased premiums
  • Bureaucratic nightmare when trying to claim

Impact on mental health:

  • Chronic financial anxiety linked to depression
  • Stress associated with medical debt
  • Desperation when seeing coverage denied at critical moments

Comparison: Public vs. Private Systems

The empirical evidence is overwhelming:

Metric US (Private) UK (Public NHS) Difference
Per capita spending $12,914 $5,387 +140%
% of GDP on health 18.3% 12.0% +52%
Life expectancy 78.9 years 81.3 years -2.4 years
Infant mortality 5.4/1000 3.8/1000 +42%
Administrative costs 30-35% 5-7% +400-600%
Medical Bankruptcies $530,000/year ~0 Infinity
Citizen satisfaction 45-55% 65-75% Minor

Obvious conclusion: Systems that eliminate private intermediaries are:

  • Cheaper (almost half the cost)
  • More effective (better health outcomes)
  • More equitable (universal access without financial ruin)

The Democratic Alternative: FSC and FSR

Planetary Demarchy completely eliminates the private insurance system through two complementary and specialized mechanisms:

Common Health Fund (CHF) — Universal health coverage

FSR Solidarity Risk Fund — Mutualization of all other risks

Clear Division of Responsibilities

Fund Scope of Coverage Operating Principle
Common Health Fund (FSC) Health exclusively

• Medical care • Hospitalization • Medications • Prevention • Medical research

Free universal coverage.

No co-payments, no deductibles, no claims. Service point assistance.

FSR Solidarity Risk Fund All other risks

• Property (home, vehicles) • Civil liability • Non-medical accidents • Natural disasters • Occupational risks

Automatic coverage with a smart deductible

. Based on history and prevention. No individual premiums.

Principles Common to Both Funds

Although they manage different areas, FSC and FSR share radical foundations:

1. Real Mutualization of Risk

In the current system:

  • Each person/company purchases individual policies.
  • Fragmentation and massive duplication
  • Profit extraction in every transaction

In the Demarchy:

  • We are all 100% co-owners of both funds
  • Risk is truly mutualized on a planetary scale
  • Without intermediaries extracting profits

2. Automatic Financing without Down Payments

Both funds are automatically funded through the Common Fund :

Immediate advantages:

  • ✅ Zero bureaucracy in contracting policies
  • ✅ Zero paperwork for renewals
  • ✅ Zero marketing (savings of $50-70 billion/year)
  • ✅ Zero negotiation of terms and conditions

3. Universal Automatic Coverage

Without discrimination:

  • There are no "pre-existing conditions" (FSC)
  • There are no "bad drivers" with higher premiums (FSR)
  • There are no excluded "high-risk buildings" (FSR)
  • There's no past that will haunt you for life.

All citizens are automatically covered (FSC).

All AU50 projects are automatically covered upon registration (FSR).

4. Radical Transparency

  • All accident statistics are public
  • All coverage criteria are auditable
  • All cases can be reviewed by the community
  • Zero fine print , zero hidden exclusions

5. Aligned Incentives: Prevention of Overpayment

In the current system:

  • Insurers maximize premiums, minimize payouts
  • Perverse incentive: More accidents = more fear = more bonuses

In FSC and FSR:

  • Any improvement in prevention benefits the common system.
  • FSC: Preventive health programs reduce future costs
  • FSR: Investment in security reduces CRC and franchises
  • Culture of continuous improvement vs. concealment of risks

The result: Systems that reward prevention rather than profiting from accidents.

The Common Health Fund (CHF)

The FSC completely eliminates private health insurance:

Main Features:

  • Automatic universal coverage - No exclusions, no pre-existing conditions
  • Free service at the point of service - No co-payments, no deductibles, no bills
  • Without bureaucracy of prior authorizations or claims
  • Professional management by medical, not financial, experts.
  • Preventive approach - Incentives aligned with maintaining a healthy population
  • Open investigation - Removal of pharmaceutical patents that delay treatments

Impact:

  • Administrative costs 5-7% (vs. 30-35% in private insurance)
  • Universal access without financial ruin
  • Better health outcomes at a lower cost
  • Elimination of $700-900 billion/year in parasitic extraction

No one is afraid of being ruined by illness anymore.

No one ever has to choose between medicine and food again.

No one ever has to deal with coverage denials again when they need it most.

See full article: Common Health Fund (CHF)

The FSR Solidarity Risk Fund

The FSR covers all other non-health risks:

Scope of Coverage

  • Property: Homes, vehicles, equipment, infrastructure
  • Civil liability: Damages to third parties, professional, product
  • Accidents: Work-related, domestic, traffic (property damage)
  • Natural disasters: Earthquakes, floods, fires
  • Business risks: Construction, transport, machinery

Common Risk Coefficient (CRC)

Instead of opaque premiums, the FSR uses a public and auditable Common Risk Coefficient :

  • Based on actual historical accident rates in the sector
  • Adjusted for investment in prevention
  • Transparent and verifiable by anyone
  • Define a fair deductible per claim

Practical example:

  • Housing construction: Base CRC 3.5%
  • With IoT prevention sensors: -0.8%
  • With certified safety protocols: -0.5%
  • With a clean track record (Trusted Capital): -0.4%
  • Final CRC: 1.8%

Meaning: In the event of a claim, the deductible will be 1.8% of the insured value. The remainder is automatically covered by the FSR

Trust Capital

  • Each actor builds Trust Capital based on their track record
  • Responsible behavior → Franchise declines
  • Proven negligence → Temporary penalty (not permanent)
  • A distinction is made between honest failures/innovation vs. deliberate negligence

Benefits:

  • Rewards those who invest in prevention
  • Does not permanently punish honest mistakes
  • Encourage transparency (hiding problems worsens your track record)
  • Build a publicly verifiable reputation

Distributed and Transparent Expert Report

Claims process:

  • Expert assessment conducted by AI + independent experts
  • Full public traceability of each case
  • Right of reply guaranteed
  • Constant auditing to detect anomalous patterns
  • Zero incentive to deny legitimate coverage

This contrasts sharply with:

  • Opaque appraisals from private insurance companies
  • Structural conflicts of interest (experts paid by the denier)
  • Arbitrary denials without effective appeal
  • Investigations that drag on until the claimant is exhausted

Transformed Operation

Elimination of Individual Premiums and Policies

  • No insurance policy required: automatic coverage upon registration of project AU50
  • No annual renewals with surprise increases
  • No fine print hiding predatory exclusions
  • No endless paperwork to activate coverage

Smart Franchise System

  • Each project assumes a smart franchise based on CRC
  • Decreases with a positive history (Trust Capital)
  • It decreases with investment in prevention.
  • Perfect alignment of incentives: Prevention directly benefits

Integration with the Demarchic Ecosystem

The FSR does not operate in isolation, but as an integral part of the system:

  • Clean accounting: Risk is no longer "hidden" in inflated prices
  • Virtuous cycle of value:
1. RUAC and DB50 flow into the Common Fund. 
 2. The Common Fund retains a minimum for Common Fund Administration , FSC, FSR, and specific funds. 
 3. The remainder is distributed as a Planetary Dividend.
  • Synergy with Selective Oxidation : The oxidation of liquid capital pushes towards real investment, improving prevention

See full article: FSR Solidarity Risk Fund

Revolutionary Impact of the FSC + FSR Dual System

Massive Benign Deflation

Eliminating the private insurance system generates benign deflation by removing multiple layers of parasitic extraction

Expected price reduction:

Sector Estimated Reduction Mechanism
Health 25-40% FSC elimination of insurance intermediation
Construction 15-25% Elimination of FSR construction insurance policies, liability
Professional Services 10-20% FSR Elimination of Inflated Malpractice Insurance
Transportation/Logistics 8-12% FSR elimination of fleet insurance, goods
Consumer goods 7-9% Cascading reduction effect throughout the chain

Resource Release

$1.5-2 billion/year of parasitic extraction completely eliminated:

  • $700-900 billion in health insurance → absorbed by FSC
  • $400-600 billion in life insurance → absorbed by FSR
  • $450-650 billion in property/accident losses → absorbed by FSR

These resources are redirected to:

  • Real productive investment (innovation, infrastructure, education)
  • Increased Planetary Dividend
  • Effective prevention instead of reactive coverage

Systemic Security Without Moral Hazard

FSC and FSR incorporate structural safeguards:

  • Radical transparency: Public accident statistics and criteria
  • Trust Capital: Responsible behavior rewarded
  • Aligned incentives: Prevention directly benefits the actor
  • No conflicts of interest: There is no profit in denying coverage
  • Continuous auditing: AI instantly detects anomalous patterns

The Human Consequence: Living Without Fear

FSC and FSR complete the triangle of democratic freedom:

Without taxes that hinder the initiative

Without interest rates that drain the value created

Without hidden private insurance fees that inflate costs

Without fear of financial ruin due to misfortune or illness

The practical result:

  • The citizen lives without fear of ruin due to illness ( FSC ) or accident ( FSR )
  • The entrepreneur creates without the burden of insurance that crushes him before he even begins.
  • The innovator can experiment without prohibitive premiums for "unknown risk"
  • Society progresses because risk is managed as what it truly is: a shared responsibility among co-owners of the world .

"In the Demarchy, uncertainty ceases to be a commodity and becomes a collective challenge that we face together, with transparency and true solidarity."

Transition from the Current System

Implementation will not be instantaneous, but it follows a clear path:

Once citizens make the leap to demarchy in their country

Phase 1: Bioregional Pilots (Years 1-5)

  • Experimental local pooled funds
  • FSC pilot: Universal health coverage in bioregion
  • FSR pilot: Mutualization of property and liability risks
  • Data from direct comparison with private insurance
  • Empirical demonstration of superior efficiency (50-70% savings)

Phase 2: Sectoral Expansion (Years 5-15)

  • Consolidated bioregional FSC and FSR
  • Interconnection of local funds
  • Mass voluntary migration from private insurance
  • Direct competition with overwhelming evidence of benefits
  • Collapse of private insurers due to economic unviability

Phase 3: Complete Transition (Ages 15-30)

  • FSC and FSR Operational Planetariums
  • Extinct or marginal private insurance (luxury niche)
  • Global risk mutualization
  • A definitive end to the parasitic extraction of $1.5-2 billion/year
  • Generations growing up without the concept of "denying coverage"

Common Objections Answered

"Without a profit incentive, the system will be inefficient"

Answer:

Empirical evidence demonstrates exactly the opposite:

  • Public health systems operate with 5-7% administrative costs
  • Private insurance companies operate with 30-35% administrative costs.
  • The "profit incentive" in insurance incentivizes denying coverage , not efficiency.

FSC and FSR will be more efficient because:

  • Without marketing (savings of $50-70 billion/year)
  • No benefits for shareholders (savings of $200-300 billion/year)
  • Without the bureaucracy of individual policies (saving $400-500 billion/year)
  • AI automates expert analysis and processing (additional savings)
  • Focus on prevention reduces total accident rate
  • People will be able to live without fear, because in case of misfortune they know they will never be alone; they are supported by all of humanity. No private company can compare to that.

"There will be massive fraud without private oversight"

Answer:

FSC and FSR have more oversight, not less:

  • Radical transparency: All claims are public and auditable
  • AI detects patterns: Anomalies identified instantly
  • Distributed expert analysis: Multiple independent experts verify
  • Permanent reputation: Trust capital linked to public record
  • Vigilant community: Fraud is no longer something ethereal; it is deducted from what we all receive in our dividend .

Compared to the current system where:

  • Insurance companies deliberately conceal information
  • Massive internal fraud (bribed adjusters, etc.)
  • Zero transparency in denials
  • The biggest scams are legal (fine print, hidden exclusions)

"Moral hazard will make people careless."

Answer:

FSC and FSR have better incentives than current insurance policies:

FSR specifically:

  • Smart franchise: Claims increase your future franchise
  • Trust Capital : Negligence permanently damages your reputation
  • Rewarded prevention: Investing in safety directly reduces CRC
  • Transparency: Your history is public, it affects your credibility

FSC :

  • Incentivized preventive health (checkups, healthy habits)
  • Without co-payments that prevent early care (secondary prevention)
  • Universal health education

Today, with private insurance:

  • "Total coverage" eliminates prevention incentives
  • Once the premium is paid, there is no additional care benefit.
  • Moral hazard is equal to or greater than in FSR
  • High co-payments hinder preventive care (reverse moral hazard)

"It is socialism/communism that eliminates freedom."

Answer:

FSC and FSR are freer than the current system:

  • No obligation to take out a specific private insurance policy
  • Without the bureaucracy of choosing between 50 confusing companies with fine print
  • Without contractual ties that lock you into predatory terms
  • More available resources (without 25-40% extraction) = more real freedom
  • Freedom of movement: Coverage not tied to employer or residence

In the current system:

  • You are legally required to have insurance (car, mortgage, health in many countries)
  • You contract with oligopolies that unilaterally dictate terms
  • You lose 25-40% of your money on parasitic extraction
  • You live in constant fear of financial ruin
  • Employment slavery: Millions tied to jobs by health insurance (USA)

Which system is freer?

"The rich will subsidize the poor/irresponsible"

Answer:

This already happens in the current system, but in a much more expensive and unfair way :

Current system:

  • Prudent investors pay high premiums to cover fraud and inefficient management
  • The wealthy have access to better insurance coverage and lawyers to make claims.
  • The poor pay proportionally more and receive worse services.
  • 30-35% of your premium goes to parasite removal that benefits no one

FSC and FSR:

  • Genuine mutualization: all co-owners, all beneficiaries
  • Administrative costs 5-7% (massive savings for all)
  • Trust Capital differentiates responsible from negligent (FSR)
  • Incentivized prevention reduces total system costs
  • The wealthy also benefit: Eliminating $1.5-2 trillion in extraction means lower prices across the board, a larger Planetary Dividend , and a more dynamic economy.

Furthermore:

Universal health coverage (FHC) benefits even the wealthy:

  • Lower crime (desperation over medical costs)
  • Greater social stability
  • Healthier workforce = more productive economy
  • Elimination of pandemics facilitated by lack of access to care

Conclusion: From Commodified Fear to Real Solidarity

Private insurance represents one of the most insidious cancers of capitalism because:

  • They extract massive amounts without creating equivalent value ($1.5-2 billion/year)
  • They artificially inflate prices across the economy (10-25% in key sectors)
  • They systematically deny coverage when it is most needed.
  • They market fear to maximize profits.
  • They create barriers to innovation and entrepreneurship
  • They generate chronic stress in the entire population
  • They distort markets through asymmetric information and fine print

The Common Health Fund (CHF) and the Planetary Demarchy Solidarity Risk Fund (PSRF) completely eliminate this cancer by:

  • Truly mutualizing risk on a planetary scale
  • Eliminate parasitic intermediaries that extract without creating
  • Automate coverage without bureaucracy or paperwork
  • Encourage prevention instead of profiting from accidents
  • Make criteria, statistics, and cases completely transparent.
  • Free up $1.5-2 trillion/year for productive investment and the Planetary Dividend
  • Eliminate the fear of financial ruin due to misfortune or illness

The question is not whether we can afford to eliminate private insurance.

The question is: How much longer can we afford to maintain this parasitic extraction system that impoverishes us, terrifies us, and robs us of our freedom?

"The difference between FSC/FSR and private insurance is not just one of efficiency or cost. It is the difference between a system designed to serve humanity and one designed to exploit it. It is the difference between living with dignity and living in constant fear."

Explore Demarchy in Greater Depth

Philosophical Foundations

Understand why Demarchy is necessary and how it is justified:

Diagnosis of the Current System

Analysis of the Conditioned Individual

Foundations of Individual Liberation

Mathematical and Architectural Principles

Solutions for the AGI/ASI Challenge

Understand why Demarchy is Necessary to Face the Future:

Economic System

The architecture that aligns individual prosperity with collective well-being:

Governance

How collective decisions are organized without permanent elites:

Technology and Infrastructure

The tools that make the system possible:

Law and Justice

The legal framework that protects sovereignty:

Culture and Society

Human Transformation in the Post-Scarcity Era:

See Also

Alternative Demarchic Systems:

Financing Mechanisms:

Other Systemic Cancers:

Demarchic Foundations:

Obtenido de «https://demarquia.org/index.php?title=El_Cáncer_de_los_seguros/en&oldid=4343»