On the contrary, insurance is not socialism, it's more like gambling. Gambling that you're going to get sick/that your house will burn down/that you will be in a car crash. If you're wrong, you lose your ante/premium. But, if you're right, you win!
Having the government in the business means that market forces won't be at work, which means it will become a cash cow that pays out, at the expense of taxpayers, far more than it makes, and therefore milks taxpayers dry. (So what else is new.) The government has a program for flood insurance - of houses along ocean coasts, or which are even below sea level, that are subject to hurricanes, tsunamis, and other such. The government premium is far lower than free-market companies could possibly charge (and still make money), and indeed the program is vastly underwater, financially. The government doesn't give a hoot about profitability, and therefore, isn't a good steward of anything businesslike whatsoever. Why, they can just send armed agents to you and I to collect more money, if they need to. And they do and they will. Suggesting the government can fix a broken market is not to understand the market at all.
“On the contrary, insurance is not socialism, it’s more like gambling.”
No, it’s not. In gambling, one creates risk by putting one’s money “on the table.” If one doesn’t put one’s money on the table, one does not create risk. In insurance, one buys into a “pool” of like-minded people to protect against a risk or a hazard they did not create, and over which they have no control.
Absolutely incorrect. First off there is no 'win', you are indemnified -- meaning "made whole, or in part", mostly in part because of deductables. Furthermore, Insurance is the spread of like risk, which is inherently socialistic (but one that I agree with). Everybody is at risk for health, and most P&C. Death is not a risk, it is an inevitability and has no indemnification value.
If you had read my whole post, the rest of your response wouldn't have been necessary. I freely admit that today's type of government cannot run such a program. It's too mired in money and political interests to be cost effective. But with the right people and right laws, it could be done. Look at SS for instance. We all know it could be done right, but government can't because it's become a piggy bank.
And regarding flood/earthquake insurance -- I don't think you're entirely correct in that the government has such a program that's government subsidized at the policy holder level. The government mandates re-insurance programs between insurers that have greater risk and those that have little to no risk. The government provides incentives for this to the re-insurer, but it's not near what you claim (corruption not withstanding). Otherwise nobody would provide that type of Insurance.
If you know of such government program, let me know the program name so I can be better versed on the subject.