Quote Originally Posted by MikeyinBrooklyn View Post
Taking only the benefit mentioned in this thread [[unemployment) for discussion for the moment, there is actually nothing related to insurance about it, except perhaps in title. "Insurance" as we know it [[like auto, homeowner's, renter's, etc. Health insurance isn't really insurance anymore, it's a corporatist utility) involves people paying voluntarily into a pool in order to receive a potential benefit, should a specific qualified and demonstrable need arise. In order to receive such benefits, you need to pay into the system, and you are assessed a rate of payment based upon the likelihood that you will need to collect, derived of both demographic and personal data.

True unemployment "insurance" would be something a financial institution set up, to voluntarily allow people to pay premiums based on a level insurance they desire to have, and their likelihood of seeking a benefit. Your employment history is strongly indicative of your employment future, so job history would tremendously affect premiums. And, just like more car accidents leading to higher auto premiums, more and longer periods between work would drive up your costs. Being someone people want to employ would both bring down the cost of your unemployment insurance and your likelihood to need it.

I think it is both rather humorous and telling that people neglect to remember that I ACTUALLY FAVOR an unemployment benefit system. I just don't think the government should be used to force someone to fork over their money [[individuals or businesses) to support someone who is both unemployed and unwilling to meet a basic set of criteria affecting their employment situation in order to receive other people's money. How about this: don't like strings attached to taking someone else's money: DON'T TAKE SOMEONE ELSE'S MONEY. Criteria like I lay out would be beneficial for 2 reasons: the real needy cases would be forced onto a hard work and self-improvement path to get the money [[and I would pair it with other social services as needed); the mooches that are out there would find those limitations and rules worse than not getting it.

As for Social Security and Medicare, they are actuarily demonstrated to be wealth transfer programs. The average person will collect substantially more than they paid in, adjusted for inflation. That was unwise but feasible when there were far more workers to seniors than there are today. Pretending Uncle Sam has a magical pot with your name on it with lots of money in it waiting for you in your golden years, if believed, is very stupid. Social Security is actually structured as a ponzi scheme. Bernie Madoff used the federal government as a role model. Only he couldn't print money or borrow from his great, great grandchildren to stay out of jail.
Two points:

1). UI is an insurance system as I define insurance, one pays voluntary or involuntarily, into a system based on some criteria and receive benefits based on certain criteria if certain events occur. Car, homeowners, health insurance are personal insurance. Medicare is the same a private health insurance except that the scope is different [[mandatory, etc. with the government playing a far larger role). If a 65 year old goes to the hospital for a hernia repair the hernia doesn't know if the health insurance is private or public [[Medicare).

UI is really a type of insurance where the employer pays the 'premium' to cover his/her workers in case certain events happen, e.g., employee laid off, terminated, business closes, etc.