Is Health Insurance Socialism?

[Michaelangelica]

no mam, not to us. we and the investors of the world do not agree. the SS and health and welfare systems have already gone to far, but not as far the countries you mentioned. appalling to the dignity of whom. the few that play the system for what they can have no dignity to begin with. the business and companies around the world want to participate, not because its cheap, but profitable. employees will work for wages with out a need for government mandates and have the choice of who or what they work for, even to work for them self.

This is a very confused post, but let me try to reply to what I think you are saying.

health and welfare systems have already gone to far,

How "gone to far"?

Due to your lousy system and levels of lousy health care and homelessness we now have Drug Resistant TB-born in NY. Here alcoholics were put up as guests of the state for 18 months and given the three anti-biotics daily necessary to kill the disease. TB is virtually non-existent here.

I was appaled at the filth I found in the casualty section of a lage Boston Hospital. My wife had to insist that the doctor-who had just been dealing with a homeless person with ahacking cough-to wash her hands before examining her. I know you have some of the best of everything, including health sevices; but you also have some of the worst.

 

appalling to the dignity of whom.

I gather you mean a decent social Security system is an affront to an individuals dignity. I find the appalling levels of poverty in the richest county in the world a far greater insult to human dignity

the few that play the system

I gather you mean a welfare system is open to abuse by a few. I agree with you there, but I am prepared to wear this for the good of the majority.

Look to to your tax system. When it was first introduced it was meant to tax very wealthy companies; when they all then went off-shore or hired canny accountants the tax base had to be broadened to include the middle class who object to "socialism" as it may cost them money.

In fact it probably saves money I was in Texas 25 years ago and had never in my life seen so much corporate wealth. I was surprised there was no Unemployment benefit. I asked what happened to the unemployed and was told that they move to NY as they had 6months Unemployment benefit ( later reduced).

"What happens after 6 months?" I asked

"Nothing' -Federal food stamps maybe" i was told

"No wonder you have such a big crime, drug and prostitution problem in NY then " I said

My yank friend didn't see the logical connection at all.

People moved to NY because of the welfare when that ran out. . .

If I and my family are homeless and hungry I am going to get money anyway I can-prostitution , illegal activities etc

the business and companies around the world want to participate, not because its cheap, but profitable.

Many Americans (USAans) seem to be under the delusion that everyone wants to live in America (especially your feral, rude customs and border guards). Yes your large market is attractive to many firms and makes things like film-making easier. That's why an Australian took them over (Fox). The Chinese market is now starting to look more attractive to many (watch Fox)

But do not be under the delusion that the USA is the best place to live. Many rich Americans are moving out to places like NZ, Europe and Australia. NZ is especially attractive to those that want a quite life away from a Terrorist Threat and want to live in a real democracy. If you saw Lord of the Rings you know how beautiful the place is. Ask a Canadian or a non-actor-Australian if he wants to move to the USA.

When I visited the USA many years ago I was amazed at people's parochialism.

"You have to see our public white sand beach" I was told in California. i found it almost impossible to explain that All Australian beaches were "public" and there were countless thousand of miles of white sand beaches.

employees will work for wages with out a need for government mandates and have the choice of who or what they work for, even to work for them self.

I think you are confusing socialism with communism

In Oz the minimum hourly wage rate is about $9-10+. Workers are mostly protected with health insurance, free education, supperannuation, subsidised medical and health, workers compensation, a welfare safety-net and strict occupational health and safety laws. They choose to belong, or not, to a Trade Union. (most do)

I note Chevron Mobil has just had its cleaners strike because they are on $5 an hour. This is the one of the richest oil companies in the world (one that our government just gave a gift of 60m to) with profits over 5B.

Corporate greed and amoral behaviour and anti-democratic behaviour is rife in the hierarchical-authoritarian corporate world.

The corporations that run America are not democratic as far as their staff and many of their activities are concerned. How much is Halliburton making from the Iraq war? why have 50,000 Us soldiers died-not for democracy for oil. All the big oil companies will be in for their slice of Iraq. (Rice is an ex-director of Chevron Mobil).

I think we all need to temper the wost abuses of a Free Market System with a sprinkling of socialism. Many people cannot survive in that system. This may be due to disease, diminished capacity, poor education, and many other social and economic factors like looking after kids (sole parents)

Give me liberty! yes, but not death by exposure or TB

[jackson33]

Massachusetts has just begun a mandatory universial health insurance program on January 1, 2007. Everyone in the state is required to get health insurance through their employers or if there is not any offered or they are simply without it the state will sign them up. It is a sliding scale program with those who cannot pay being totally subsidized and then others have their premiums based on income levels.

 

One of the main reasons this was implimented was MA was spending over $1 billion per year on emergency room visits for the uninsured. This program through premiums and cost savings by sending those uninsured to clinics instead of the ER is by law to pay for itself. Of course, we will have to wait to see the results, but 100,000 of the uninsured have signed up.

 

i am sure you understand Mass is one state of 50. having said this the problem they had with emergency rooms, in itself is from mandated law.

this is a problem for all states, but not entirely for reasons you may think.

 

as you said the results are pending. i do know every other state has representatives in Mass, trying to get there business to move to there states.

[jackson33]

M. A.; there simply is no way to stop a sprinkling of socialism. government itself, the people wanting re-election, will see to it their people get what is wanted.

 

the first social idea to take root, was social security. the intent was to take the peoples money and give it back to them when they retire. this system now has 80 million people getting something every month, the least of them are retired people. dependents, surviving and disability benefits have set the pace. each added much later for any number of reasons. these people in affect never put any money into the system and those that are currently retiring will get all they put in, with in 10 years. Medicare was added many years later and is a disaster in motion...

 

no doubt you can give examples where society has failed. this is however not the responsibility of government. personal responsibility is what made the US whatever it is. benevolence of the people, toward the other people, another and the idea of community involvement. the fine folks from places that have been for 6 to 15 hundred years have little concept of what it has been like to do all this country has done in 200 years. in actuality it was unique in history and may never happen again in mankind's existance.

 

one last thing; a capitalistic society, requires socialistic restraints to work.

anything you consider good, has come from this system. the degree of socialism is what makes any form of communistic government. there are few totally commune style countries left, none in what is called the industrialized world. Cuba was a very vibrant capitalistic nation that rivaled many of the worlds powers at one time. their people today have no opportunity to achieve anything, every person in this country can pursue and often achieve.

[jackson33]

First, the Declaration of Independence is dead document with zero legal implications for the US. Concerning the US Constitution, the supreme law of the land, one need only to read the Preamble, which has equal weight with any other part of the Constitution, to see the intent of the founders.

 

"The Constitution of the United States of America"

 

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

 

The cost of government includes; "promote the general welfare", which means help Americans in need. Since Congress has established through its law making power laws that protect those in need they are the law of the land until struck down by the federal courts or changed by Congress later.

 

first; the US, laws are with in the structure of the constitution and the amendments. it is not dead, very much alive and part of our existence. we are proud of it and desire no changes. no city, state or federal law can go outside this document. the process to go beyond these guidelines has been tested more times than you might think.

 

the words "promote" and "provide" mean different things. from the writing of those who formed the document we have come to accept this as creating the atmosphere or encouragement, but non-interference. the word provide, has a very differing meaning, which is government and protection.

 

Americans in need. who is it to determine this fallacy. if Bill Gates needs a new house, i am sorry its up to him to buy it. if you need a new liver, this should be up to you. if a person is a citizen and has not achieved whatever i have, its not up to me to provide him/her what ever they consider needs.

 

by the way your quoting the pre-amble of, not the constitution. that is the reason for not the mechanism...

[Freddy]

first; the US, laws are with in the structure of the constitution and the amendments. it is not dead, very much alive and part of our existence. we are proud of it and desire no changes. no city, state or federal law can go outside this document. the process to go beyond these guidelines has been tested more times than you might think.

 

the words "promote" and "provide" mean different things. from the writing of those who formed the document we have come to accept this as creating the atmosphere or encouragement, but non-interference. the word provide, has a very differing meaning, which is government and protection.

 

Americans in need. who is it to determine this fallacy. if Bill Gates needs a new house, i am sorry its up to him to buy it. if you need a new liver, this should be up to you. if a person is a citizen and has not achieved whatever i have, its not up to me to provide him/her what ever they consider needs.

 

by the way your quoting the pre-amble of, not the constitution. that is the reason for not the mechanism...

I said,

Originally Posted by Freddy

"First, the Declaration of Independence is dead document with zero legal implications for the US."

 

I did not say the above about the US Constitution.

 

Whether the Preamble is the reason for is not the point. The point is the Preamble is just as much a part of the US Constitution as any of the 7 Articles or the 27 Amendments.

[Pyrotex]

...if Bill Gates needs a new house, i am sorry its up to him to buy it. if you need a new liver, this should be up to you. if a person is a citizen and has not achieved whatever i have, its not up to me to provide him/her what ever they consider needs....

You may technically have a point there, but...

 

BUT... I don't want to live in a country where people are dying in the streets. Where children are starving and begging for food. Where people can justify crime because their babies need bread and milk right now. Where the disabled cannot even get or keep a job because a wheelchair is just too damn expensive. I do not and WILL NOT live in a country where dead bodies must be picked up off the streets and out of tenement shacks each morning.

 

Do YOU want to live in a country like that? Perhaps you can afford to live in a gated community (with friendly armed guards!) so you don't have to see the death and suffering down town. Good for you!! I can afford it, too, just barely. But <<I>> would still know that the death and suffering was going on. And I refuse to live with that.

 

There is a thin, thin line between Laissez-faire Capitalism and heartless fascist assholism.

[jackson33]

You may technically have a point there, but...

 

BUT... I don't want to live in a country where people are dying in the streets. Where children are starving and begging for food. Where people can justify crime because their babies need bread and milk right now. Where the disabled cannot even get or keep a job because a wheelchair is just too damn expensive. I do not and WILL NOT live in a country where dead bodies must be picked up off the streets and out of tenement shacks each morning.

 

Do YOU want to live in a country like that? Perhaps you can afford to live in a gated community (with friendly armed guards!) so you don't have to see the death and suffering down town. Good for you!! I can afford it, too, just barely. But <<I>> would still know that the death and suffering was going on. And I refuse to live with that.

 

There is a thin, thin line between Laissez-faire Capitalism and heartless fascist assholism.

 

where on earth do you live????? its certainly not in the US and for sure not in Houston Texas.....

 

none of those thing exists and you darn well know it. look in your phone book. there are hundreds (pages) of listings where everything you even suggest no help is available is found in mass.

 

if things were that bad, its your responsibility to get up and do something about it. to ask others to solve your view of humanity in your neighborhood, in your town is not my or any other person responsibility. if a person is to lazy to help themselves or their family or unable, that person should be confined. in Texas, i can get this done in 5 minutes and you in two. report to your choice of local authorities.

 

since your smart enough to type, i must assume you know many communities around this country have cleaned up their neighborhoods. one man pretty much cleaned up NYC a few years back and countless participate in watches at every level, all the time.

[InfiniteNow]

Jackson,

 

I'm going to ask that you watch your tone, be respectful of our members, and review the rules if needed. It's fine to feel passionate about something, but argue the merit of your point. Your "are you daft" approach is, for me anyway, growing tiresome... Thanks. I'll be glad to clarify if you wish to PM me.

[Pyrotex]

where on earth do you live????? its certainly not in the US and for sure not in Houston Texas....none of those thing exists and you darn well know it....

Correct. These things do not currently exist. You misunderstood my point, which was:

 

these things WOULD exist in a totally unconstrained capitalist nation where there were NO social security, NO safety nets, NO taxpayer funded services for the disabled, the desparate, the disadvantaged, the dissolute. that is my opinion, and one I hold to quite strongly.

 

Prune the government down to just military protection and keeping the peace -- get rid of everything that you consider to be 'tainted' by socialism -- and let everybody fend the hell for themselves as they are able, and you WILL get dumptrucks cruising the back alleys, the bullhorns blaring...

 

"bring out yer dead... bring out yer dead..."

[Edella]

if a person is to lazy to help themselves or their family or unable, that person should be confined. in Texas, i can get this done in 5 minutes and you in two. report to your choice of local authorities.

You can get people who are to lazy or unable to work confined (jailed I presume) in five minutes? Does this include those who are unable to work through no fault or their own?

 

There is a thin, thin line between Laissez-faire Capitalism and heartless fascist assholism

I would like to see this printed on our money.

[jackson33]

Correct. These things do not currently exist. You misunderstood my point, which was:

 

these things WOULD exist in a totally unconstrained capitalist nation where there were NO social security, NO safety nets, NO taxpayer funded services for the disabled, the desparate, the disadvantaged, the dissolute. that is my opinion, and one I hold to quite strongly.

 

Prune the government down to just military protection and keeping the peace -- get rid of everything that you consider to be 'tainted' by socialism -- and let everybody fend the hell for themselves as they are able, and you WILL get dumptrucks cruising the back alleys, the bullhorns blaring...

 

"bring out yer dead... bring out yer dead..."

 

well sir, the conditions you suggest for that scenario were what was, for most of the history of this country. our government was formed with idea of self destiny, self reliance and a touch of benevolence. this served to promote and develop the worlds center for economic and social ideas. the introduction of social tactics, is not beneficial to society. for starters there is no end to the idea of control. if its good to control smoking for instance, then it good to control whats eaten, then its good to control whats watched on TV and in the end lets control death. i will cut this here, but you know this has been and will continue to be the reality.

[jackson33]

You can get people who are to lazy or unable to work confined (jailed I presume) in five minutes? Does this include those who are unable to work through no fault or their own?

I would like to see this printed on our money.

 

if people that are capable to provide and do not, can be held responsible for not doing so. if a person is not capable, yet has a family is liable to some degree to find help. if that person is not capable to find help, then its up to a neighbor to help out. there should be no reason for the Federal Government to become involved.

 

no doubt most every person over 20, has helped some one many times. maybe even, i have. what is so disingenuous is the idea some one with apparent means is liable to the so many that in life preferred the use of earned resources for personal gratifications. booze, drugs, gambling or just over spending on stuff they never needed.

[jackson33]

Jackson,

 

I'm going to ask that you watch your tone, be respectful of our members, and review the rules if needed. It's fine to feel passionate about something, but argue the merit of your point. Your "are you daft" approach is, for me anyway, growing tiresome... Thanks. I'll be glad to clarify if you wish to PM me.

 

if some one calls me or infers "heartless fascist *******", my response will be the same. there will be no PM, however it is hard to tone down something i consider mild responses, at least to the tone of a message.

[Pyrotex]

if people that are capable to provide and do not, can be held responsible for not doing so. if a person is not capable, yet has a family is liable to some degree to find help. if that person is not capable to find help, then its up to a neighbor to help out. there should be no reason for the Federal Government to become involved.....

I see where you're coming from. It is an extremist view, but not without its logic -- and its appeal.

 

The trouble is, it is based on three questionable things:

(1) a romanticized view of 18th and 19th Century American society;

(2) an idealized belief that a capitalist democracy <*should*> be a certain way, without demonstrating where those "shoulds" come from;

(3) a false assumption that "your brother's keeper" only applies to one's immediate family and neighbors. In other words, if the pain and suffering isn't on your door step, then you are not obligated to give a damn.

 

And come on... just between us friends... :doh: aren't you really figuring that you'll never have to use all that national insurance stuff and social security stuff, and you'd druther just pocket your share of that money? Could mean a big flat-panel TV next Christmas, right? :)

[Freddy]

Tonight ABC World News Tonight's story on California's universal health plan also pointed out that 3 states have now passed universal health insurance plans and 15 other states are in the process. Looks like Ted Kennedy, the father of universal health insurance, will get to see his baby sweep the nation!

[C1ay]

In other words, everyone is required to pool their money (roughly similar amounts for similar services) irregardless of one's use of the health care system.

 

This is untrue. I can tell you from a real life experience that the last time I changed jobs my insurance increased by more than 250% and my coverage was roughly cut in half. I went from a company of 50,000 to a company of 2. My current amounts and services are drastically different than those I had before.

 

The current problem with the U.S. healthcare system is that it quite opposed to a socialist system. Consider the current situation regarding auto insurance in the U.S. Everyone is required to have it and those that need it have to pay more for it. This effectively reduces the risk of the insurance company and subsequently everyone enjoys a rate lower than it would be if it worked like the current health insurance system.

 

When we look at health insurance coverage and the fact that having it at all is optional we find that only those that need it have it. Healthy people avoid the expense since they find it usually cheaper to just pay outright for the few services they use. As a result the risk is high to the insurance company since a high percentage of the insured they carry will actually use the insurance frequently. Because the population of insured has a noticeable percentage of people that use as much or more in healthcare than the premiums they pay the insurance company nets a negative return. This is a large reason for the insurance companies trying to negotiate cut rate prices with medical providers.

 

Compounding the problem is the litigated society. Malpractice insurance rates have skyrocketed. Many doctors services are now limited by their malpractice insurance forcing patients to see a variety of doctors in place if a few that they used to see. For example, more and more general practioners are now referring diabetic patients to endocrinologists because their malpractice insurance no longer covers this area of practice. More and more general doctors can't treat chronic pain anymore, they have to refer you to a pain specialist. The pain specialist in turn will not rewrite a blood pressure prescription because his insurance won't cover him for that. This is just another result of the insurance industry trying to limit it's risk.

 

Then there's the cost of medicine itself. The fact that you can buy most drugs across the border at lower cost is evidence of the money drug manufacturers need to make to cover their research and manufacturing costs and still turn a profit. Then there's the insurance premiums they have to pay just in case some drug they make interacts with some drug another company makes and all of the sudden they're faced with a $100 million lawsuit. They don't have this risk in countries with caps on awards but they are forced to pass on the cost on insurance in countries like the U.S. wher they do.

 

IMO, a socialist approach is the answer in the U.S. but I don't favor a system run or managed by the U.S. government, inefficient at everything it does. If everyone were required to have insurance, whether or not they need it at this point in their lives, the net effect would be to lower the risk to the insurance companies and their costs which would result in lower premiums for everyone.

 

The second biggest help would be caps on awards. It is senseless that someone can buy a cup of hot coffee, spill it in their own lap, sue for millions of dollars and win. These lawsuits do not cost the insurance company anything, they cost the insured through increased premiums. I would actually favor annuitized payouts on the awards that are given. If someone wins a million dollar lawsuit because they poured hgot coffee in their lap I see no reason to give it to them in a lump sum. Let the insurance company by an annuity that pays that million over several years so that the cost they pass on to us, the consumers is reduced. It is us after all that ends up paying all the outrageous awards.

[Pyrotex]

...The current problem with the U.S. healthcare system is ...

IMO, a socialist approach is the answer in the U.S. but I don't favor a system run or managed by the U.S. government...

The second biggest help would be caps on awards....

It is us after all that ends up paying all the outrageous awards.

Very well said. A concise and clear summary of the issues. Rat own! Rat own!

 

Nobody minds "socialized" auto insurance! Nobody minds "socialized" fire department services! Nobody minds "socialized" public education! Nobody minds "socialized" taxes to pay for roads and utilitities!

 

But say "national health care" and ordinary, loving folks who go to church every Sunday, suddenly whip out their machetes and AK-47's and scream, "DIE, YOU GODLESS COMMIE PINKO RATFINK!!!"

 

;)