nonprofit insurance & inverted loans

the way insurance companies are run, there is a lot of bias on the grounds of risk, as well as on the grounds of profit. what if the grounds of profit were removed to a principle-percentile fee with additional costs solely for inflation?

should insurance companies be based on selling help upon a rainy day through the creation of fear, or provide the groundwork for abating the rainy day?

socialized networking creating gamified pseudo unions.

here is how it would work:

• insurance companies take monthly payments based upon a risk adjusted cost to consumer. the worse credit, and more destructive tendencies increase the payment so that for every expense, there is excess money coming in to cover it.
• because of the very top heavy nature of the business plan, the first payment(s) are non-refundable fees towards the creation of account in the system, and are the effective replacement for the per-month profit.
• limit the amount invested monthly into the nonprofit account to be logarithmic decay, this also filters out people who can't make the payments, all by making the first several payments large, and then taper off. part of the tapering off is a how long the person wants to pay to hit the limit.
• create a social game of a network which allows people to choose members (or groups) to 'reduce' their personal risk by 'blending' it with others. this creates an easier approach to corporate rates, as well as for unions, political movements, groups of friends, and families to offset the risk or cost   without lowering the affected credit gain.

what this in effect accomplishes is a sum or amalgamation of debt, natural social distribution of risk, and a limit to how much people "prepay for their loan". for example in health insurance the premiums are quite high even when you don't need anything, even when your demographic is one of the lowest risk groups. making it so people can talk about and share their hobbies while also backdoor analysising their  personal risk further through their personal disclosure. you can demarcate much higher risk people from the much lower risk. 

so men are 6% more risky than women? well if people are going to incur risk based on non-choice accounts they should also incur risk for things they truely love to do, and the communities for that activity should be the ones willing to foot the bill to some small degree. for example, if a company deals with the outdoors they should be able to donate a part of their profits for/to those negatively affected by the exercise of freedom. they could choose to donate for a capitalist warranty program, or they could choose to donate to offset medical or emergency costs for healthcare events which involve their market's major interest. this offsets immediate costs/risk for those doing the activity. also derivative products of safety certification (like driver's license for health care and car insurance) could be sold to businesses to reduce the risk associated with the concern.

all in all this allows people to:

•  save their money safely, and effectively, while designating it for purpose
• divert the total magnanamy of risk to the greater community, 
• locate and store large amounts of funds for anti-inflation investing in related public works reducing risk,
•  get allot of fees right off the bat.

it is literally corporate governance through post locale analysis of policy and the maintenance  of 'interest based' self categorization. it does slightly go against secular civility but should be acceptable.