Talk:Social insurance

I
I dont get it


 * You don't understand these systems, or you don't benefit from one of these systems? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Template added today and later blanked
I blanked the template recently added to this page because it seemed to me to be potentially highly contentious. There should be a good reason for adding this kind of template because there are already categories and related links as a way of getting further information.

I'd be grateful if editors would take a look at the template as it was before I delted it and also at the discussion I started at the template's talk page and provide some feedback.

I just have a sense that visuality of the template and some of the subcategories could have had a politically unbalanced presentation not in the spirit of Wikipedia. For instance the linking with articles about the negative side of the welfare state (fraud, dependency, etc.) without equal linking to articles on the positive side (alleviation of stress, social cohesion, etc.). Also some of the articles where the template was placed seem to me to have very little to do with the welfare state per se. --Hauskalainen (talk) 18:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

2017 comment
"Despite the US programs being in considerable surplus ..." This is not true in 2017. Perhaps in 2010 it was true.131.131.64.210 (talk) 13:10, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Potential references for a new section describing functions, features and reasons for Social Insurance
"Social Security History". www.ssa.gov. Retrieved 2020-02-20.

^ Marmor, Theodore R.; Mashaw, Jerry L. (2006-01-01). "Understanding Social Insurance: Fairness, Affordability, And The 'Modernization' Of Social Security And Medicare". Health Affairs. 25 (Supplement 1): W114–W134. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.25.w114. ISSN 0278-2715.

^ "Social Insurance: Meaning and Features | Poverty | Economics". Economics Discussion. 2017-11-09. Retrieved 2020-02-20. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8713LOLA (talk • contribs) 09:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Clear america-centrism and political bias in article
this article was written either by an insurance company or some graduate from the chicago school of economics. i will attempt to make it NPOV and provide examples outside of the bubble the original author was in Socrates420 (talk) 20:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree with above poster
Yes, this is the most biased--politically and nationally--I've ever seen. The negativity reads like a conservative talking point. I have no training in economics, so I don't know if I can be of much help or feel very comfortable adding much, but the vast majority of studies during the pandemic showed that unemployment insurance didn't significantly lower the rate of people looking for jobs. It might be interesting to look at levels of happiness and social insurance, as those seem to go hand in hand. (Sorry if I'm not doing this right, first real remark on a Talk Page)

I wish for a more balanced perspective
If you look at the references, they are all from that same school of thought. I wish someone with a more modern global perspective could help edit this article. Because it reads very biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deniskrizanovic (talk • contribs) 04:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Dubious
The moral hazard issue makes positive statements—that people are, in fact, tended to behave in these ways—not backed up by scientific evidence. The first citation given doesn't even state that people are tended to behave in an immoral way and incur greater costs, but seems to talk about behavior regarding income, and uses it as a model rather than presenting empirical research. Can we not present normative ideals as positive? John Moser (talk) 17:47, 5 May 2022 (UTC)