What would a partially socialist state look like?

[dannieyankee]

I hear about all the evil of socialism, but some aspects of it seems not that bad.

 

1) Why should someone's health be at the mercy of someone whose focus is not on their health, but earning money? A state-run healthcare program does not sound so bad when you realise why things like this make "socialist healthcare" a better idea than privatised healthcare.

 

2) education cannot be left to he states, clearly. See my previous thread on education.

 

3) Civil rights should also be something that does not go by state. Your marriage should not be voided in some states because they don't like the homosexual lifestyle. A gay person needs equality, and the States should not be left to decide over time. This is something that should be determined by the Supreme Court - whether gays have a constitutional right to marry based on the fact that 'all men are created equal, that they deserve' the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Wouldn't one argue that marriage is a pursuit of happiness?

 

If someone has any differential or supporting arguments, I'd love to hear them.

[lemit]

Have people really thought about how the U.S. health system works?

 

I think the people who say we have the greatest health care in the world should remember just where that great health care comes from. How much medical research is completely funded by private enterprise? How many new procedures and treatments and drugs are developed by completely private funding?

 

Where I live, I am surrounded by CDC facilities of various kinds. I find the best internet medical information on MedlinePlus. I am a couple years away from Medicare, with an income that will qualify me for a lot of benefits.

 

It is a heavily socialized medical system that is the best in the world. That system is better than the private enterprise partners it supports. I think those private enterprise partners should be required to develop their own research and procedures without government funding. Then people could have a choice between socialized and privatized medicine. I know which I'd choose.

 

The people who are afraid of socialized medicine are often, as usual, those who are very happy to use the system they attack. Who knows? They may not have got the benefits of a public education.

 

I probably should repeat what I've just written, in simple words with uncomplicated thought processes, for those people. But I don't want to waste the time of the rest of us, with our socialized education.

 

--lemit

[HydrogenBond]

Free market health care is more efficient than socialized health care. But on the other hand, the goal of the free market is too create wealth, which in health care, means providing as many goods and services as possible, including some junk food, if one can create a market for it. The inefficiency of government will not be able to provide the same level of frills, but will narrow down, by default. Many people are afraid they will lose their medical junk food, which I understand.

 

For example, if the government was in charge of national food care and was the sole provider of food to the people, it would not be efficient enough to support 12 versions of hamburger chains, 20 pizza chains, etc. It would look more like a small grocery store with the staff of a huge grocery store. We would lose the fast food.

 

If you look at health care, logically, if healthcare is actually improving health, the demand for goods and services should be going down. As an analogy, if a food bank was filling up the stomachs of people, after the initial spikes in demand, as all the residual hunger is satisfied, the eating curve should begin to flatten. It should not be going up and up unless we are promoting obesity. The government is too inefficient to follow this free market model being lucky to organize the meat and potatoes. It would provide repetitive bland but healthy food choices, that will flatten the curve.

 

Another analogy I see, is an oil change. We only need to change the oil in the auto about every 5000 miles. But the free market says 3000. The inefficiency of the government will strive for 5000 but end up with 4000. The next possible step for national health is getting rid of the medical care compulsive disorder so the reality of 5000 miles is seem as more real than 3000 miles. I can see the bumbling government saving the day as it trips and pushes the lever by accident, so people realize, wow, we only need to change the oil every 5000 miles.

[lemit]

One of the fascinating misconceptions about government is that since it doesn't respond to the market, it doesn't respond to anything. The fact is, government workers generally have the taxpayers watching everything they do and therefore are held to a pretty high level of efficiency.

 

Try doing goverment-funded basic research. (Actually, there aren't many opportunities left, since the leaders in basic research have gone to private universities.) The constant need to justify everything you do so you can continue to receive public funding is probably the greatest source of inefficiency in our socialized model. You become pretty inefficient if you spend all your time on efficiency studies.

 

I know free enterprise can be excruciating. My point, which I probably have not made, is that publicly supported enterprises have their own pressures.

 

--lemit

 

p.s. I live close to an old-fashioned, overstaffed--a single person waiting is reason to open a new checkout stand--neighborhood grocery. I love it. They all know me. They all know I have some mobility problems, so somebody is always waiting to carry my groceries. We can have more of those with socialized food? Wow!

[dannieyankee]

So I understand the main problem within this entire operation is the fear of the loss of choice. What I propose is a government healthcare system that has various options for healthcare, or even personalized healthcare systems - it seems very difficult to keep up, yes, but the fact remains that the only reason it remains difficult is because it is hard to keep track of millions of people's personalised healthcare. However, making everything computer-based will simplify this problem. All you need to do is put their name or Social Security number into the computer and you will have their programme.

 

How does that sound?

 

Healthcare is not a supermarket. It should not be treated as such.

[SidewalkCynic]

I hear about all the evil of socialism, but some aspects of it seems not that bad.

I believe the USA has always been partially socialized - to be completely socialized, or "capitalised," would require direct democracy. As it is, a hierarcial republic, there is a balance negotiated between the two economic systems.

 

 

1) Why should someone's health be at the mercy of someone whose focus is not on their health, but earning money? A state-run healthcare program does not sound so bad when you realise why things like this make "socialist healthcare" a better idea than privatised healthcare.

Well, if the doctors', and the developers of medical methods, secondary focus is not on making money, because of socialized healthcare, what then will be their focus that leads them? How then do they decide who gets priority attention? Why be a doctor when being a movie theater attendent is just as significant to the social system.

 

2) education cannot be left to he states, clearly. See my previous thread on education.

I read your entries about education, and I do not see anything that suggests that you believe the states are failing because they are not adhering to national standards?

 

Sure, you have some ideas that you believe would make things better, but the next politician doesn't agree completely, and so a compromise is struck. Has it ever occurred to you that it's the compromises that cause the problem, or do you believe compromise is always good?

 

3) Civil rights should also be something that does not go by state. Your marriage should not be voided in some states because they don't like the homosexual lifestyle...

What you are failing to understand is the full rendition of a social system.

 

As it is, we have two political parties that are never in complete control of any particular district. So, we will never know how well their theoretical principals actually guide a district, because their principals are always negotiated to a compromise.

 

In the case of state marriage liscensing you are focused on homosexual marriage as being benign, because you are so much more intelligent than the rest of the people. What you are failing to realize is that the rest of the dumb people in this world should not have to be subject to your authoritarian tyranny.

 

What I would suggest is that you gather all the people who agree with your beliefs as to how to run a political district, and you all relocate so as to gain control of a district, and then prove that your ideas are better if they are pursued without compromise to the dumb people.

 

So I understand the main problem within this entire operation is the fear of the loss of choice. What I propose is a government healthcare system that has various options for healthcare, or even personalized healthcare systems - it seems very difficult to keep up, yes, but the fact remains that the only reason it remains difficult is because it is hard to keep track of millions of people's personalised healthcare. However, making everything computer-based will simplify this problem. All you need to do is put their name or Social Security number into the computer and you will have their programme.

 

How does that sound?

 

Healthcare is not a supermarket. It should not be treated as such.

 

Sounds like a healthcare supermarket, only that you believe the government can run it with people who really care. Haven't you noticed how much government run entities are worked by people who cannot make it in private sector, and are usually below your standard of competence?

[lemit]

Well, if the doctors', and the developers of medical methods, secondary focus is not on making money, because of socialized healthcare, what then will be their focus that leads them? How then do they decide who gets priority attention? Why be a doctor when being a movie theater attendent is just as significant to the social system.

 

I used to work in a state-run hospital, one of the best hospitals in the world, a leader in transplant surgery, advanced imaging, toxicology, and reconstructive surgery. It worked very closely with the CDC Zoonosis Center, another socialized system. The medical advantages you have were developed by the professionals in those socialized systems.

 

Don't make fun of those highly trained, highly qualified physicians. They're still bound by the Hippocratic oath, and they believe in it. If you ever need any exotic treatment, good luck getting it outside of a publicly run research hospital.

 

Movie theater attendant?! I think you owe both the doctors and the people who work in theaters an apology.

 

--lemit

[lawcat]

U.S. is a socialist republic.

 

Every representative democracy is a social system. We are a form of representative democracy, therefore we are a social system.

However, our representative democracy is a constitutional representative republic. This makes it the closest thing to oligarchy--the rule of the most powerful--of all representative democracies; our system is also the farthest from communism which is the ultimate social system--the social tyranny.

The reason for that is that in a republic, necessarily, those with most money are best represented; therefore republic is always oligarchial in nature. But, because our system is constitutional and representative, we are also social.

 

The inherent social nature of our system comes from our government's purpose. The purpose of our government is "public safety and welfare." In a representative state, there is an "imaginary public person" whose "safety and welfare" the government primarily protects. That imaginary public person is an emboddiment of the collective.

 

In a social state, such as ours, the imaginary public person is always--well almost always--more important than any individual, even though it is the individual who lives limited life on this planet.

 

We are also constitutional: the governement is ordered and individual liberties are ordered under the constitution. When it comes to iindividual, only basic fundamental liberties are protected: equal protection, notice and hearing, voting rights, reasonable search and seizure, freedom of thought, speech and press, etc. But all those individual rights are still subject to the rights of the public imaginary person who is almost always more important.

 

Because we are a republic, and those who are most powerful always look for highest profits; then, in our system the social decision-making sometimes favors profits.

 

So, we are in essence a socialist republic--a dichotomy. Sometimes a socialist agenda (the public person) prevails, and sometimes the profit making for the benefit of few prevails.

 

The question is always whether the public person's interest is more congruent with individual's needs, or whether the profit maker's interest is congruent with individual's needs. Hence the perpetual battle between the parties..

 

Today, it appears, that the public Healthcare will prevail. I personally want to see public heatlhcare in U.S. I want to see it. If it fails so be it.

[lemit]

Thanks, Lawcat.

 

That's a very carefully considered and well written post.

 

We often forget the reasons for our actions. We get so caught up in the individual stories, in the bright lights and shiny toys of political discussion, that we forget we are acting out larger archetypes of philosophy and public policy. Thank you for reminding us why we're doing what we're doing.

 

Now, let's get out those bright lights and shiny toys. We're going to need them to get done what we need to get done for those people who, while representing the common-man myth of America we'll be celebrating in a couple of days, will be forgotten afterwards if we don't act on our ideals.

 

--lemit

[SidewalkCynic]

I think you may be allowing for the mixing of some ideas a little too much,...

Because we are a republic, and those who are most powerful always look for highest profits; then, in our system the social decision-making sometimes favors profits.

is definitly a result of what is defined as, "capitalism."

 

What you may not understand is that, no matter how it is the political authority of a district, their primary concern is the progress of commerce, not necessarily profit, but that the citizen continue to work collectively to progress the community. Even in the evil days of theocratic rule, the primary concern of the leadership is to keep the people working. It does not matter what the message was (economic theory), ultimately, progressed commerce is the goal.

[GAHD]

If you want an example of a partially-socialist state with public health care, you need look no farther than your friendly neighbors to the north.

 

Our system allows for equal treatment for all, and although you technically need a provincial health card, no hospital will ever turn you away if you don't have one. John/Jane Doe gets the same treatment as Mr(s) Hilton/Richarson/Smith/Winesteine.

 

You still pay for your own medicine if you're not in life-threatening need of it, leaving plenty of room for capitalist drug companies to push their wares.

 

A public health care system is a great thing, and internal competitiveness between hospitals still insures a pay gradient for MDs of different specialties. Even in a socialist health care system, supply and demand rule the pay of doctors and nurses.

[lemit]

If you want an example of a partially-socialist state with public health care, you need look no farther than your friendly neighbors to the north.

 

Our system allows for equal treatment for all, and although you technically need a provincial health card, no hospital will ever turn you away if you don't have one. John/Jane Doe gets the same treatment as Mr(s) Hilton/Richarson/Smith/Winesteine.

 

You still pay for your own medicine if you're not in life-threatening need of it, leaving plenty of room for capitalist drug companies to push their wares.

 

A public health care system is a great thing, and internal competitiveness between hospitals still insures a pay gradient for MDs of different specialties. Even in a socialist health care system, supply and demand rule the pay of doctors and nurses.

 

That's why we've got the best healthcare system in the world and you don't!

 

USA! USA! USA!

 

--lemit

 

p.s. I didn't read what you wrote, because I already know, WE'VE GOT THE BEST DAMN HEALTHCARE SYSTEM IN THE WORLD! and I'm not gonna let some goddam socialist canuck tell me any different!

[SidewalkCynic]

I am very certain that all of the states have laws mandating that hospitals cannot turn people away, but that does not mean the hospitals are required to provide unlimited healthcare for terminal illnesses.

 

Does everybody who wants to die in the care of an institutionalized healthcare enviroment allowed to indulge in such in Canada? I may not be as popular as Michael Jackson, but that's all capitalism driven exploitation, and as far as Canada should be concerned my life is just as equal as any other - right?

 

I think I am in the early stages of dying now, and I want to take advantage of all the provided state comforts of absolute flawless healthcare to ease my passage to death - can Canada provide me that kind of health coverage?