KangAi Commune's Refusal of Aid and an Insurance Company's Claim Denial Follow Two Completely Different Logics

KangAi Commune pioneered a fully post-event cost-sharing online mutual aid model with no prepayment. To say it is somewhat innovative means, in part, that although its principles are similar to those of an insurance company, its operating logic is completely different. Take the refusal of mutual aid as an example, and consider:

— When KangAi Commune refuses aid, this in itself does not increase the platform's revenue; on the contrary, it may reduce income by lowering the amount raised. So why would it refuse aid? The fundamental reason is that, while maintaining the mutual aid system, it must control cost-sharing reasonably and lawfully to prevent risks that would cause the platform to collapse.

— When an insurance company denies a claim, it saves the company money on claims and increases its income. So from a profit standpoint, an insurance company must, on the basis of its policy terms, reasonably and lawfully deny claims, in order to protect commercial interests and ensure the company's profit and its continued survival and growth.

Fundamentally, whether a mutual aid platform or an insurance company, each must refuse mutual aid or deny claims within its own institutional framework.

On this point, insurance companies have more flexibility than mutual aid platforms. Mutual aid platforms generally must publicly disclose information and account to all members for where the mutual aid funds go, so their flexibility is actually less than that of insurance companies. An insurance company does not need to explain to anyone; it can deny or not deny a claim according to its commercial needs. Even if paying a claim causes it a loss, that is fine as long as it is willing to bear it. But a mutual aid platform cannot do that—it cannot explain it to members.