Why Is the Anti-Cancer Commune Not Defined as Insurance?

I stress that the Anti-Cancer Commune is a great creation in terms of model — no less than what P2P is to banks, Uber to taxis, or Airbnb to the hotel industry. It needs care and nurturing, and it can grow into an innovative technology company that makes the world better.

To say that it cannot be defined as insurance, I ask experts to consider the following:

1. Free to join, with no premiums collected in advance. This is completely different from insurance.

2. Members are free to come and go, with no good-faith or moral issues and no penalties. This is different from insurance.

3. No management or handling fees are charged to members.

4. The revenue model relies on value-added services, unlike the three-margin model of traditional insurance companies.

5. It does not rely on actuarial calculations, but adopts the principle of the maximum acceptance by members.

6. If no one suffers a serious illness, there is no payment at all.

7. The Anti-Cancer Commune is very light and very low-cost, without an insurance company's system.

8. Because there are no large prepaid premium funds, its operational risk is greatly lower than that of an insurance company.

Of course, its underlying principle is the same, but many things have the substance of insurance. There is a village in Shandong that makes fireworks and firecrackers in household workshops, and accidents are frequent. When an accident happens, that household's able-bodied adults are gone. So the local custom is that whenever any family has an accident, the whole village pays to raise that family's elderly and children. — This is the principle of insurance, but can it be defined as modern insurance?

The Anti-Cancer Commune is simply trying to replicate this village on the internet. Difficult as it is, it must be attempted.

In addition, the source of inspiration for the Anti-Cancer Commune was observing religious fundraising. This also shows that the principle of insurance actually exists in many settings, and that modern insurance is only one part of insurance. Now, as technology advances, it is time to interpret the essence of insurance more comprehensively. I believe the regulators will surely understand this.