Is Health Insurance Socialism?

[jackson33]

Everyone that has a car is required to have auto insurance though. IMO, everyone that has a body should be required to have health insurance...

 

i agree and as with the auto insurance the body owner should be required to get the insurance. is that wrong???

[CraigD]

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.

This analysis omits a significant effect of large punative awards - that they set a legal precedent that provides an incentive for potential defendants in similar lawsuits to change the practices putting them at risk of lawsuits. Many engineering safety-enhancing engineering features and professional practices were developed for this reason - medicine, auto and aircraft travel, and many other fields who's safety we largely take for granted are more safe because of changes manufacturers and service providers made, by their own admission, to avoid lawsuits.

 

The famous ”McDonald's coffee case” (Liebeck v. McDonald's) C1ay mentions, and many similar, less well-known cases before and after it, were almost certainly instrumental in McDonald's and other restaurants reducing the temperature of their coffee by about 10° F (from 190 to 180, far less of a reduction than the 140 requested in the lawsuit, but better than nothing). It also, due to its publicity, increased public awareness of how severely spilled hot liquids can injure someone. Although it's difficult to quantify this latter effect in terms of reduced pain, suffering and medical cost, I suspect that it has been significant.

 

Mini first aid PSA: If you spill painfully hot liquid in your lap, immediately remove your soaked clothing and/or rinse with cold liquid!

 

There're several common misperception about Liebeck v. McDonald's that bear pointing out

• Liebeck's injuries were minor.
  79-year-old Liebeck suffered 3rd degree (full thickness) burns of an especially sensitive and important 6% of her body, requiring skin graft surgery, a week of in-patient hospitalization, at a total cost of about $11,000
  
• Liebeck seized on her accident as an opportunity to make millions of dollars.
  She first sought a $20,000 settlement with McDonald’s, to which they counter-offered $800. Just before trial, McDonald’s offered $250,000, which Liebeck, now represented by counsel, rejected.
  
• Liebeck obtained millions of dollars from McDonald’s.
  Although a jury awarded her nearly $3 million, the amount was reduced to $640,000, and actually settled out-of-court for “an undisclosed amount less than $600,000”.
  
• Liebeck v. McDonald's increased McDonald’s insurance premiums, and the cost to customers of their food
  • Although individual McDonald’s franchise owners typically purchase liability insurance from insurance companies, Liebeck’s lawsuit was not against a franchise owner, but against the McDonald’s corporation. Most large corporations, including McDonald’s, do not purchase liability insurance, but satisfy business regulatory requirements by demonstrating that they possess sufficient assets to pay court judgments against them.
    
  • Because of the precedent established by Liebeck v. McDonald’s, similar cases in which defendants have been able to demonstrate that their coffee is served at under 180° have been dismissed. It’s arguable, therefore, that the Liebeck case has actually decreased the legal expenses of McDonald’s and other restaurants and manufacturers.
    

[HydrogenBond]

I am not saying that the current system of insurance is bad, but only that it has a socialist philosophy that also uses a captialistic system. There are examples of socialism, such as insurance, where working as a team, with some carrying the burden of others (give more than they receive), works out to the benefit of most.

 

But on the other hand, the socialist element of insurance carries with it many of the problems with socialism, which is lack of incentive to act like one is healthy without need of care. An old time male, would never use the system, except in emergencies. They would doctor themselves of live with the pain.They left these scarce resources for the women, children and truly sick. Now we are taught to get your money's worth (get back what you give) by using any test or method covered by the insurance. This is a captialist/socialist approach that lead to medical inflation. A true capitalist approach would be pay as you go.

[Tormod]

I have followed this thread with some interest, since I live in one of the most advanced welfare countries in the world. I was shocked by the "welfare" system in the states, but I was among the lucky people with health insurance (mandatory for exchange students at my college) and was treated at a local private hospital for severe neck pain which meant taking morphine for a week (I will admit it was a good week at times :D ). I would not have been so lucky without that insurance.

 

Here in the Cold North we pay insane amounts of our money in taxes and VAT and whatnot. Our hospitals are overworked and understaffed and worn down, but we have a very thorough system. Every single person is assigned a regular doctor, which means regular checkups etc. We do pay minor fees for this but it is all a part of the Big Package.

 

I was once on sick leave for a year (horrible, not recommended) due to extreme anxiety (same year Hypography was launched, maybe there is a link). It took four years of medication, therapy and other things to get back to a "normal" life. I still suffer from severe sleeping problems (which have been life long).

 

I suffer from asthma and allergies, and have a relatively high sick leave count. I am often tired to the point where I can't go to work. Etc etc.

 

I was once holed up in bed with a lung infection and at a certain point my fever was so high that my doc called an ambulance and I spent two nights in the hospital, sweating it all out and getting well (I was on the verge of dying from asthma - I couldn't breathe until I got serious medication at the hospital). Cost: 0.

 

Some members will remember an incident in the fall of 2004 (or was it 2005? Time flies) where I had a stroke-like attach (later identified as an ischemic attack, where the blood supply to the brain is severely restricted and oxygen levels fail). Treatment, long-term recovery. Cost: 0.

 

BUT - I do pay my dues. I feel that being part of a country like mine also means paying your share. Yes it hurts to see the paycheck knowing that so much is paid to the state. But boy does it feel good when your kid trips and hurt her head and needs to go the ER and it is nearby, open 24 hours, and completely free.

 

Is it socialism? Not by a long shot. Norway is a constitutional monarchy built on a constitution not much different from the American one (and only a few decades younger). Is it capitalist country with a social welfare state? Yes.

 

No deep points to my story except that a good welfare system does not mean that you pay for what you get. You pay your share because the next person to fall down may be your wife, your neighbor, your colleague, a lady on the bus, and you want them to be safe and get treatement. You may elect to get optional insurance and get instant help at a private clinic (yes, we are considering it because we have two little girls) but this is a luxury item in Norway.

 

So HydrogenBond is partly correct when he says it is a socialist philosophy. I'd argue that a good capitalist system needs a very good welfare system, because it pays more to have people at work than at home, and prevention is the best cure. Take care of people and they will work harder.

[Freddy]

Everyone that has a car is required to have auto insurance though. IMO, everyone that has a body should be required to have health insurance...

Three states, NH, CT, and TN do not require compulsory auto insurance. Also, many drive illegally without insurance. States are cracking down on the lawbreakers.

[jackson33]

tormod; you do know your -o- cost, were not zero and the source of that payment for your expenses were paid. you also mentioned a few problems all socialized medical systems have, not just yours. underpaid, overworked and deteriorating facilities. you may be surprised to know the equipment and medications are also below US grade and no doubt the expertise and the quality of people. if you could get three to five times you current wage, a very good retirement program, 100% paid insurance, transportation and local help to adjust in a new community you would take the job...this is what medical people of quality can get, today. not just in the US, but in any country where "pay for service" is legal. even if your country has an alternative program for pay service, the quality will be much better with in that system.

 

the scenario you laid out, is tragic and it is ashame people sometimes go through such experience. however you would have received the same care in the US, if you lived on the street and ate at the local shelter. the American system is not what most think it is around the world.

 

lets say for some reason a major outbreak of (you name it) occurs in the country you live. the already over worked system, will breakdown and the results catastrophic. i will not get into the current waiting lines for needed services are now or what they will become, but this alone shows a need for additional funds, which will come from your paychecks and others who happen to be working. if an economic situation occurs and many are laid off or work for a defunct company, this will add to what is taken. there are other possibilities, but my point should have been made.

 

i do not know much about Norway's business structure. work week, vacations, unions and so on; but my guess it has more socialism than you suggest or may even know. in the US it cost an employer about 50% more to employ a person than the wage itself. in Germany and France this can by up to 150% and near impossible to discharge an employee. time off and vacations account for much of this, since full pay for no work is involved. these things are mandates of their federal government and this is socialism. in Taiwan the cost of an employee is what he/she receives and the cost to government is the 25.00 permit the business received to operate. this is pure capitalism. when government can or does mandate, this is a degree of socialism and is generally followed with additional degrees.

[Pyrotex]

There was a recent period of American history when there were no unions, no SS, very little insurance (and none of that mandatory). It was the Age of the Robber Barons. Around 1870-1910.

 

There was only a small "middle class", mostly mercantile. The vast majority of American workers were either on the land (farms) or working in the exponentially growing industrial sectors (meat packing, transportation, ship building, railroad, automobiles, oil, steel).

 

The "working class" had little if any medical service at all. Wages were too low to afford that. There was no medical insurance available at any cost. All medicine was on a "cash" basis. Workers who tried to unionize for better working conditions were sometimes met by armed Pinkertons, who shot them down in the streets. Working conditions were often quite dangerous, and resulted in many disabling or lethal accidents. Those too old or too sick to work, were lucky to have a large family to care for them. If they were not that lucky, they starved. Children begging (and starving) on street corners in NY City near the turn of the Century was commonly decried in newspapers of the day.

 

Now, I could be wrong, but it seems to me that nobody of that era was claiming that American society had reached the heavenly goal of a socialism-free, self-reliant utopia.

 

Correct me if I am wrong, Jackson33, but (setting aside the lack of medical technology in that day compared to ours) wouldn't YOU say that the Era of the Robber Barons was pretty much an ideal utopia, from your stand-point of being socialism-free?

 

I seem to recall that much of America's population worked very hard to overthrow that Era, so they could replace it with something more humane.

[jackson33]

when i make a comparison, it has to be with current conditions to that time. to argue what things were like during the period you suggest, i could do and still come up with a comparable utopia. the best of times in the US may have been the 20's, where history itself claims a utopia, but there was still no welfare.

 

i feel your replies are in earnest and in reality i have no problem with a touch of compassion. my personal opinion is the people in the country i live are in fact, by nature compassionate. this i also feel comes from a pride in country that i cannot explain. my fear is these and other qualities will be lost to the effects of socialistic societies. this has been the theme of my post.

 

government by any definition is still the power of a few. if this power is abused its for the benefit of the most, in oder to maintain itself. the most can become the least productive, since very few will refuse the hand outs offered. i have seen this at its worst, living in the Latino Society, with kids and all, even in business and for over twenty years. its called being in the system by those that run the system. there goal is maintaining people, much as units of something to maintain their purpose. its very hard to explain but dignity to some is based on how much is gained from the system or to how much you can give away to maintain the system. these are ALL good people. i love them all, in or out of the system, and have three kids still there but back in the system with their kids. i have never blamed those that take what is offered and when you live in a society that is 75% in the system, you are the society view. all i have suggest was possible has in fact happened in this town. Kingsville Texas is one of very few that has decreased in population over the past 40 years. some others and there are, have no functioning government. they exist as third world towns in this vibrant national society.

 

i do thank you for thought out replies and your time.....

[Dov Henis]

From the preamble to the United States Constitution:

“ We the People of the United States... promote the general Welfare... "

 

Reflecting on the relationship between "promotion of the general welfare" and the numerous aspects of healthcare of ALL the people, each and everyone, would you consider the constitution socialistic ?

 

Or what would you rather correct, the preamble or the present healthcare system?

 

The title of the thread invites a discussion about the nature of socialism

whereas the discussion has been about the nature of present health care systems. To continue this discussion on its present course I suggest,

paraphrasing Albert Einstein, that we can't assess and solve problems by using the same kind of thinking used when they were created.

 

I suggest that discussing and arguing aspects of the present healthcare system in the States would be relevant and applicable AFTER by the people for the people democratically discussing, arguing and electing if and by what principle to...promote the general welfare...of the people in regards to and via the health care of the people.

 

Thinkingly,

Dov

[Cedars]

I guess I have never thought of it as socialism, rather it appears to me to be more along the lines of racketering.

 

I cant imagine mandating health care will drive down the price of medical insurance. I only need to look at the mandatory insurances now in place and see a lack of competion for my insurance dollar. Call around for car insurance and the different companies will be within a few dollars of each other, regardless of my driving record being clean.

 

2004 Was the Most Profitable Year Ever for the Insurance Industry

 

"Despite a weak economy and soaring medical costs, U.S. health insurers have raked in earnings at a far greater pace than the rest of corporate America, with annual profits and margins doubling in the last four years.”4

 

“Average pay for the five top executives at [the top] health insurers almost doubled [over the last four years] to $3 million a year.”5

 

Health insurers raised premiums 59% during the same four-year period.6 "

 

Insurance Industry Continues to Profit - Cleveland Personal Injury Lawyer

"In the first nine months of 2006, profits of the property/casualty insurance industry totaled $44.9 Billion, a new record for the industry."

[jackson33]

The title of the thread invites a discussion about the nature of socialism

whereas the discussion has been about the nature of present health care systems. To continue this discussion on its present course I suggest,

paraphrasing Albert Einstein, that we can't assess and solve problems by using the same kind of thinking used when they were created.

 

I suggest that discussing and arguing aspects of the present healthcare system in the States would be relevant and applicable AFTER by the people for the people democratically discussing, arguing and electing if and by what principle to...promote the general welfare...of the people in regards to and via the health care of the people.

 

Thinkingly,

Dov

 

the words "promote and provide" have very different meanings. provide security has a specific meaning. to promote something is vague and only be reviewing writings of those that wrote this can you get a general idea.

i can agree the principles and conditions in the late 1700's were not as they are today. i will also argue the idea of self responsibility, which was intended should still be required.

 

the US health care system, is not that bad to start with. where government has become involved is in fact (not speculation) the cause for much of the increased prices. suites against the practitioners is a factor, but not sole.

 

there is little i can add to what i have expressed in previous post as to where socialism, tends to go based on examples set by so many well intended peoples. pick you topic, begin a system to provide and it will take on life of its own.

 

in my discussions on socialism, i have seen...pre-pregnancy to post death coverage of health---jobs for any person or compensation equal to the average nation wage---housing, furnishings and utilities equal to the total in the family, while additionally granting unlimited, fully paid time off for vacations or leaves of absences with out cause---total educational needs from birth to death w/o qualifications---even to free shopping for the needs of anyone. rarely do i see any mention of personal responsibility.

[CraigD]

where government has become involved [in healthcare in the US] is in fact (not speculation) the cause for much of the increased prices.

Can you please provide supporting evidence for this “fact”? I’m reasonably expert in this field, yet would describe my own assessment of the effect of the US government on healthcare cost, and that of many more qualified individuals and agencies, as well-researched speculation, but short of accepted fact.

 

It’s well known and well documented in the healthcare and healthcare insurance industry that US government (states’ Medicaid and federal Medicare) programs reimburse providers at a fraction (typically 80%, but for some procedures, substantially less) of the fee-for-service or usual and customary rate of the procedure. UCR rate calculations are established by the CMS (formerly HCFA) agency. Historically, it’s proven difficult for providers to have CMS increase UCRs to keep pace with actual costs.

 

Perhaps in reaction to this, by the early 1970s, providers learned to “pad” Medicare claims with lab and other third-party test interpretation charges, not because the ordered tests were diagnostically indicated, but because they legally could. Providers and government auditors have been in a state of financial war ever since, leading to the slow but inevitable replacement of Medicare Cost contracts, where the provider is reimbursed based on the cost of his services, with Medicare Risk contracts, where the provider is paid a “capitated” fee based on the number of Medicare beneficiaries he contractually commits to treat. After several years of false starts, as of late 2005, Medicare Risk appears to be functioning effectively to prevent provider abuse, less well in assuring that providers aren’t bankrupt due to their costs exceeding their payment. Provider who have been able to continue to have Medicare contracts (no provider is required by law to participate in the Medicare program) now complain that they are at a disadvantage competing against those who have not, while the reduced number of Medicare providers has had a measured impact on service and quality of care of beneficiaries (patients).

 

I’m personally confident that these recent difficulties can be overcome, and US healthcare of the old and disabled become as good or better than any country’s. The suggestion that a “pay as you go” system, with no government involvement, however, strikes me as impractical, and unsupported by scientifically sound evidence.

[jackson33]

you answered your own question. maybe simple padding, but the accepted prices (reduced or not) still out of line. over the past 30-40 years, these cost have increased or inflated many times any other service, need or item. an exception maybe housing and of course taxes...(city-county-state-SS-medicare-sales-luxery-income-death and a whole lot more)

 

as to government involvement in any program, i will suggest the end price will be up. health care, education and so on. government is not set up, to set or dole out expenses. the cost of any procedure in one place to that of another had been set by local conditions. this no longer is true.

 

i do hope the systems in place will not grow to what i fear. its however not material to me and i really do not care. i will argue and favor less government and prefer free markets to government mandates and regulations. i am opposed to any socialistic program, which i feel drags on the peoples ability or even desire to be responsible.

 

anyone really interested in the cost of social programs can find all the information they want on any number of sites. i would suggest a review of national budgets, dated from 65 to 06, then project to 2047. we are not in some zero plus gain economy, however the findings may astonish the most ardent socialist.

[jackson33]

I guess I have never thought of it as socialism, rather it appears to me to be more along the lines of racketering.

 

I cant imagine mandating health care will drive down the price of medical insurance. I only need to look at the mandatory insurances now in place and see a lack of competion for my insurance dollar. Call around for car insurance and the different companies will be within a few dollars of each other, regardless of my driving record being clean.

 

2004 Was the Most Profitable Year Ever for the Insurance Industry

 

"Despite a weak economy and soaring medical costs, U.S. health insurers have raked in earnings at a far greater pace than the rest of corporate America, with annual profits and margins doubling in the last four years.”4

 

“Average pay for the five top executives at [the top] health insurers almost doubled [over the last four years] to $3 million a year.”5

 

Health insurers raised premiums 59% during the same four-year period.6 "

 

Insurance Industry Continues to Profit - Cleveland Personal Injury Lawyer

"In the first nine months of 2006, profits of the property/casualty insurance industry totaled $44.9 Billion, a new record for the industry."

 

you make some good arguments, which you are not alone in. some conditions you mention are for reason. most of the remaining companies that insure are diversified in auto, truck, health, housing, private and commercial. they no longer offer flood or some others that bankrupted many of the bought up or gone under companies. they also can pass on many expenses today, which for competition was not possible years ago.

 

i would rather not get into profits by any group, or what is paid for management. i am not going to research this, but the value of whats insured has been dramatically going up. the cost of homes, property and belongings of an individual has about doubled each 10 years. in some places like Vegas, NYC, Florida these increases are much greater. a truck load value and the quantity of trucks are very much higher and each load is now insured.

the cost of an auto has increased. you also need to understand the insurance company is paying higher prices for all the things i mention as well as the cost to do business.

 

50 billion seems a high figure for an industry. they are required however to maintain a certain liquid reserve for emergencies. whatever this figure is, it will dwarf that 50 billion. as i recall the total value of property in the US is over 100 trillion (may be low, but makes point) and they are continuously at risk to lose it all. most do have re insurers or parties that insure the dollar values of portions of a company.

Warren Buffet and Loyd's are two well know. stock holders and many REITS have formed to back up those insurance companies. bonds are sometimes issued or sold for major projects, like the twin towers.

 

on to the wages paid top management. there seems to be a general assumption these people are floating around unemployed and anyone could do the job. they have as a rule very complex methods for compensation. the most common are annual salary plus incentives. stock options and retirement benefits generally determine the high cost you see but by law they are all public record and you can find in any company report.

[Michaelangelica]

I must be from another planet :) or use a different language but how can any form of INSURANCE be socialistic?

Insurance is where you pay by your own free will to be covered against the possibility of some future event (house burning down, death, horse winning, sickness)

:)

We have many Private Health Insurance funds in OZ.

70% of those earning over $125,000 a year are in Private Insurance Funds

About 40% of those earning over $60,000 are in Private Insurance Funds

http://www.chere.uts.edu.au/pdf/phi.pdf

We also have a compulsory 2% tax levee to fund the Public Health System.

The system is not perfect. There are a lot of inequalities (no inequalities= socialism?).

Waiting lists for operations are long in the public system and the Dental health care is privately expensive and publically appalling ( An "emergency" dental appointment means you wait 12 months in the Public system).

 

So is taxation socialism?

[CraigD]

So is taxation socialism?

Though I suspect this question was intended to be rhetorical, I think that, in a reasonable sense, its answer is yes. In another reasonable sense, no.

 

In the sense that compelling individuals to share their earnings with others is socialism, and taxes are an obvious means of doing this, taxation is socialism. In the sense that socialism means that all resources are shared, and taxes are assumed to be less than 100% of an individual’s resources, then taxation is not socialism, because it compels only the sharing of a fraction, not all, resources.

 

A few posters in this thread, notably jackson33, have maintained that the essence of US society, government, and its Constitution, is that government should have as small a role in society as possible for society and government to survive while individuals enjoy basic rights. While this is, I think, an accurate assessment, it falls short, I think, of describing a more fundamental essence: that government is legitimate only when it acts in accordance with the consent of the governed.

 

Through its Legislative and Constitutional amendment processes, the retirement pension and healthcare assistance policies of the US government are, I believe, consented to by a large majority of its People. Arguments that such programs are in technical violation of US law or more fundamental principles fail, I believe, because the legitimacy granted them by the consent of the governed is a more fundamental principle than any other. The same is true, I believe, of most prosperous nations, regardless of the technical details of their government.

 

To what the People consent is not constant. For example, prior to 1913, there was no US federal income tax, and the federal government as a result had less money than even small states. Due largely, in my analysis, to widespread public unease at the relative military ineffectiveness of the US compared to European nations, there was and continues to be overwhelming popular support for a strong, well-funded central government, and consequently a substantial standing federal military, even though numerous interpretation of the Constitution and contemporary documents strongly condemn strong central government.

 

Were this consent to be withdrawn, the 16th Amendment could be repealed by a 2/3 vote of the House and Senate, and ratification by at least 34 of the 50 state legislatures. Were this to occur, programs such as federal Social Security and Medicare, as well as a permanent federal military as large as at present, likely could not exist.

[Racoon]

In a case like the United States, Health care insurance should be handled at the state level, as opposed to the federal level.

 

Because California health care is quite different from Massachusettes. Different states are trying to come up with solutions that fit their needs.

 

My belief is that there are too many people, and too many unhealthy Americans, to make a socialized healthcare plan that would work and not sink the budget.

Covering a population of 30-40 million is one thing.. Its quite daunting when you try and cover 300+ million.

 

Among all the very excellent points brought up, I for one wouldn't trust my government to run such an endevour.

 

here is a great article on California trying to find a solution....

HEALTH CARE: LOOKING FOR ANSWERS / STATES STEP UP WITH UNIQUE PLANS / Other jurisdictions' solutions can serve as models, but California's program will have to be custom-made

 

Several other states are experimenting with changes to their health care systems. Here is a look at what they are doing:

 

MASSACHUSETTS

-- Requires everyone to have insurance by July 1, 2007. Employers who don't offer insurance to workers are required to pay a "fair share" contribution of up to $295 annually per employee to a state fund that subsidizes coverage for those who can't afford it.

 

-- Establishes a state office to oversee the insurance market and help individuals purchase affordable health insurance.

 

MARYLAND

-- Passed a law requiring all large companies to spend 8 percent of their budget on health care. Wal-Mart was the only employer in the state that fell into that category.

 

WISCONSIN

-- Lawmakers are considering replacing the current health care system with a single-payer plan, and more modest proposals such as expanding Medicare and creating tax credits for businesses that provide insurance.

 

-- One reform proposal would use a payroll tax to give money to individuals to buy private insurance certified by the state.

 

WEST VIRGINIA

-- Created a pilot program for residents who get state health care that provides additional benefits for people who agree to and follow a health-management plan.