It would work. And should definitely be the system.
You also pay more/less depending on your zip code. And your credit record. And any other number of secret reasons that they won’t even tell you.
And when people must pay whatever Big Pharm charges, exactly what incentive is there then? Apart from an incentive to maintain the extortionate system, of course. Hmmm?
Most of that $350/year is for paying the claims against others in the same pool as you. You are in a good pool. But not all of you escape accidents or claims in a year.
Big Pharma is an oligopoly (in the USA). They are partly able to maintain their position because of heavy FDA regulation on anyone who wants to offer drugs. It is pretty costly to even be a generic drug provider.
Then I should be in a pool with people like me: exceptionally low miles driven, no moving violations in more than 30 years, and no accidents in more than 50 years.
It’s a scam, like the dongle that supposedly affords discounts for good driving habits. I got a whole TWO DOLLARS a month discount, presumably because I don’t speed up to get through on the orange, I stop. I repeatedly got points taken off because I supposedly stopped in less than the desired distance. Encouraging people to speed up rather than stop is idiotic and dangerous, but it lets the insurance company refuse meaningful discounts to safe drivers.
Stopping in less than the expected distance can be risky, at risk of getting rear-ended by the guy behind you.
An insurance pool of people just like you may be too small. Maybe just you in it. So you may be i a pool of people who drive less than 6,000 miles a year and so forth.
The whole thing gets sketchier when speaking of health insurance and socialism, because of government regulation. You may be the healthiest person ever, who eats just enough and right, gets plenty of exercise, wipes down everything and always wears a frequently laundered mask, has never missed a day because of sickness. You will still be expected to pay the health costs of other people who are none of those things. And under socialism, if you make twice what another person makes, you will have to pay more so that the other person can have the same as you. If you have an issue with that, then you are “selfish”.
It depends on the kind of “socialism” we’re talking about. The best kind is the old “from each…to each…” AKA potluck. Everyone gets their needs met to the extent possible from the common wealth, and everyone is expected to do their best to keep the common wealth from being depleted.
Those who expect to freeload would have a hard time living in the community unless they were diagnosed with a real psych problem. But the majority of people are not freeloaders and are cooperative by nature. So that question wouldn’t often arise.
And why would I, for example, care about what someone else chooses from the reservoir of common wealth? They want to live in a mansion and have a 100-inch tv set in every room and matched Lambourginis in the garage? As long as there are enough mansions, gigantic tvs, and Lambos to go around and nobody tries to force any of them on me, I’m not complaining.
And it’s the same on the other side — I don’t want to be the grand panjandrum of all I survey, so if someone else does, and can handle the work, what’s that to me? He or she is not getting any more pocket money for that work than I am for mine.
The idea of socialism is that everyone earns their share by doing their share.