Is Health Insurance Socialism?

[Pyrotex]

...beef...it lays in the socialistic intrusion of the total system.

I could only repeat what i have mentioned before. basically your health and the health of your family is your responsibility. same with regards to prevention. to think government should assist you personally is illogical and no doubt impossible.

...what you want is the "pay for service" system available to all and free. this will never happen...

Jackson, I'll step in one more time. May be my last, as I am getting tired of this thread. :evil:

 

There are a lot of people who think (strongly) that things should be different. And many of them (such as your own sweet self) share their thoughts with others. This puts your opinion into the "marketplace of ideas" that is our current society, where folks are free to accept or reject.

 

There are no "shoulds" in reality, except where a majority of people elect to put an opinion into Law. This almost always pisses off the minority. This is the normal course in any democracy. Better to have the minority pissed and still engaged in the system, then feeling they have a right to armed struggle.

 

You are a member of a minority opinion. That doesn't mean you are wrong, just numerically outvoted. However, I suggest you have made an unproductive choice in how you represent your opinions: you take an all-or-nothing, black-or-white viewpoint of history. That dog won't hunt.

 

A little bit of social justice or social care, implemented at the state or national level, does NOT mean that it will become absolute, all-encompassing, and destroy us. It means that we have freely elected to have a "little bit". Or a "moderate bit". Or a "significant bit". Whatever.

 

The pendulum is NOT either on the far right or the far left. The pendulum swings both ways and is sometimes in the middle. The ability of the People to change the Law, to decide we need more (or less) social power in the hands of government agencies, trumps everything else, even the Preamble. We, the People, will listen to YOU and we will listen to others, and we will collectively make our decisions every two years.

 

This keeps power out of the hands of folks (perhaps like your own sweet self) who hold very strong, very extreme positions. Not because we don't like you. But because extreme positions, when put into practice, fail more often than not. This is one of the reasons our Founding Fathers gave us a democracy with checks and balances.

 

The key word is balance. We currently have a balance between the extremes. A dynamic and ever-changing balance. The wants of the needy in precarious balance with the resources of the blessed. This will never be ideal, but it will always be better than either extreme.

[jackson33]

MA; the US was built on the idea of personal responsibility. this is a very hard thing to explain and involves traditions, customs and heritage. both sets of my grandparents taught my folks and i taught my kids, that they are responsible for their actions. its not unique in concept, but has become so in practice, for such national ideas.

 

socialism per say, has established track records. here and in most places on the planet. the end results are always contrary to the idea of this self management of life. in order to drive a car it once required the car..period.

this now requires knowing about 50,000 regulations from national and state laws to about 1,000 dollars a year to cover liability expenses, even if you have a 50 year clean driving history. the cost and expected knowledge are the same for every person or in fact pure socialism. some places you can't use a phone or smoke in your car. i have mentioned other things and will not go on, but the idea of government mandates are repulsive, indignant and create dependence, to most of us...

 

maybe the 60% of USA ens, i am part of are wrong, but we feel a good example is being set and the worlds nations should take a good look to where they are headed. very shortly much of national society will have over half its people on some form of a government program which will then snowball.

[eric l]

Jackson,

 

I am not one who goes frequently into foul language or scolding, so you better listen !

With your 75 postings by now, there is "thinking" under your name, but I see little proof of that. In fact I started wondering whether you can really mean all that you write (in this thread and others).

You refuse to see that socialism is more than a politcal or economical system based on some of Marx's theories. To me, and to many others, socialism is acting against privileges, and for the rights of every one. From that point of view, the American declaration of Independance begins with an absolutely socialist statement : "We hold this thruths to be self evident : that all men are created equal..."

Only if you manage some way to give all people, in every state, every town, every rural area (to remain within the US) the same opportunities, you can say them that from there it is there own responsability wheter their pursuit of happiness is succesful or not.

[jackson33]

pyrotex; no sir, at this time i am still in the majority. socialism is creeping just a little slower into our lives. some progress as been made on the welfare and involvement into every aspect of my life has slowed. movements seem to be going extreme, that is right and left wing ideology. centrist is only for the politicians try to attract both. which way it goes in time will effect my kids and ill pass into old age and a non-effectual senior citizen member.

 

yes, i have set view on the history of this Nation. the stories of the founders and all they paid in life, for the privilege to set a national trend in motion and the thought that must have gone into the process. then through our short history and all this new nation has done for so many other countries w/o second thoughts. i look at the Louisiana or Alaskan purchase, the Lewis and Clark expedition, the westward bound wagon trains with dreams, while some look at stealing land from Indians. here again i could bore you with more but in the end i would still only suggest; these people and those until the 1980's were self starting and took on responsibility some today can only read about and are incapable of making even the simplest of decisions, w/o government...

[Sacri Sankt]

yes its socialilism. but socialism isnt all soviet republics and five year plans. thats only the unusual non-democratic socialism, analagous to facism on the right. socialism that works within democratic societies is social-democracy, a very main-stream view in europe but apparently not in the usa. its no more dangerous or immoral than other liberal democractic ideologies. but then, both us political parties are way to the right, so i guess mainstream opinion has been skewed by this.

[jackson33]

Jackson,

 

I am not one who goes frequently into foul language or scolding, so you better listen !

With your 75 postings by now, there is "thinking" under your name, but I see little proof of that. In fact I started wondering whether you can really mean all that you write (in this thread and others).

You refuse to see that socialism is more than a politcal or economical system based on some of Marx's theories. To me, and to many others, socialism is acting against privileges, and for the rights of every one. From that point of view, the American declaration of Independance begins with an absolutely socialist statement : "We hold this thruths to be self evident : that all men are created equal..."

Only if you manage some way to give all people, in every state, every town, every rural area (to remain within the US) the same opportunities, you can say them that from there it is there own responsability wheter their pursuit of happiness is succesful or not.

 

well sir, all men and women are created equal. they all have certain inalienable rights. life, liberty and PURSUIT of happiness. this is the very essence of responsibility and to strive, work for and achieve the rights for all these individuals. what each does with the rights is not governments problem, the founders wishes or my concern.

 

capitalistic, economy based, constitutional & representative government has no place for socialism of any kind. benevolence, charity and compassion are subjective entities for people to have for their families, friends, affiliations and neighborhoods. to compare what i do or do not do is of no importance to what you do or don't. we both have the opportunity to have done the same...

 

you can also note, that my post seem to be controversial. few agree that mankind is heading toward a total reliance on government handouts and only the biggest piglets, will get some milk. thanks for reserved "foul language" and you probably noted, i do not use. as to thinking; indirectly you are correct. its a natural reaction for me to oppose things i feel will be bad or destructive for the future generations of the country i so love...

[jackson33]

yes its socialilism. but socialism isnt all soviet republics and five year plans. thats only the unusual non-democratic socialism, analagous to facism on the right. socialism that works within democratic societies is social-democracy, a very main-stream view in europe but apparently not in the usa. its no more dangerous or immoral than other liberal democractic ideologies. but then, both us political parties are way to the right, so i guess mainstream opinion has been skewed by this.

 

there are just so many examples of how good intent as led to total dependency by both the writers and recipients of social programs. with you ill try this current "declaration of emergency". in 1890, a hurricane hit Galveston Texas, killing 10,000 and leveling the town. before the water had receded the remaining people in this town were burying the dead and cleaning the streets. they provided food and shelter for those in need and in a very short time had rebuilt the town. no crying for help, no waiting for FEMA and no expectations of help.

 

the temperatures in California dropped to freezing, not even records. it is tragic to those that grow the crops and we will pay higher prices or do with out. BUT, the governments of California declared and the Fed responded.

there are thousands of comparisons i could give you on how such programs have gone from good intent to ridiculous limitations and these limitations will move forward.

 

Europe is suffering from the weight of its social programs. the USSR fell for many reasons but certainly socialism was instrumental. there is nothing i can say to justify any failed program, since in the failure lies the destiny of the people that relied on them. socialism is in degrees, call it by any name you want, but the degree once started, goes up and up and when its fails as it always has, the ones hurt are the ones it started out to help.

[Michaelangelica]

So, as jackson has so amply proved "Citizens of the USA are frightened of socialism"

I seem to gather the following reasons from Jackson.

Please tell me where I am going wrong.

 

1. It will make people dependent on the government

2. They confuse it with communism.

3. They are very insular and do not see "socialism" working in Europe, the Pacific and Asia (Singapore is a bad example?).

4. Somehow to have a social security system lessens the value of the individual

5. It leads to the destruction of the USAan way of life.

(What ever that is!-from where I sit it looks like the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer)

6. People will not "pick -themselves -up,-dust-themselves-off-and-start-right -over-again" they will wait for government assistance (look at the way those people in New Orleans haven't yet got it right- not like the Old Days!)

6. Acceptance of government help means you are somehow lesser person. "God helps those who help themselves"

7. Bit surprised at this one_

benevolence, charity and compassion are subjective entities for people to have for their families, friends, affiliations and neighborhoods.

. A government is not allowed these characteristics- strange but true as Riley said

8 Our history is one of "rugged Individualism" and we should stay being rugged individuals. (Is this true?)

9 Socialism creeps slowly by stealth into our lives sapping the wills of us and our children therefore making us weak (like some sort of nasty virus or extraterrestial "Blob")

10. If you want something you should personally pay for it

 

Have I got it?

I don't care if you believe this or not.

I do care that many will be exposed to drug resistant TB in all corners of the planet because the richest country in the world won't provide homes or health care for its poorest people.

As I said before, the US has an International Obligation to get its Own Health Care right for the rest of us.

 

I assume you have compulsory vaccination of children ?? (socialism)

Just to stir the pot:-

Are you going to inoculate young girls against Cervical Cancer (as we will do starting next year) or do you think this will just make them all rush out and have unbridled sex?

PS

These might be interesting to USAians

Medicare Meets Mephistopheles

NEJM -- Medicare Meets Mephistopheles

 

Reinsuring Health: Why More Middle-Class People Are Uninsured and What Government Can Do

NEJM -- Reinsuring Health: Why More Middle-Class People Are Uninsured and What Government Can Do

 

Redefining Health Care: Creating Value-Based Competition on Results

NEJM -- Redefining Health Care: Creating Value-Based Competition on Results

 

Gender, Race, Class, and Health: Intersectional Approaches

NEJM -- Gender, Race, Class, and Health: Intersectional Approaches

[jackson33]

MA; i talk only for myself. my guess would be 60% of the US is opposed to living in socialism, but i would also suggest many here have no idea what it means.

 

you list is general correct and my view, but you do realize much could be in the history of your country.

 

our system has it near right. w/o mandate most do take suggestions from their medical advisor's and take precautions. being responsible is usually a result of also being informed.

 

again, i have read many articles down grading the US system and many with total opposite opinions. i prefer to accept as creditable the ones that serve my purpose. no socialism, less government and more personal responsibility.

[Freddy]

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.

Looks like it will cost 50% more than planners first expected to insure residents under MA's universal plan.

Worcester Telegram & Gazette News

[TheBigDog]

A story of progress...

 

Back in 1990 I got hired by my current employer. I was just 22 years old, and it was my first "real" job that required skill and rewarded performance. After the '92 election that was a great deal of talk about national health care. It was the topic of the day with the President's commission being headed by the First Lady. During the campaign the issue of national health care had been in the forefront, with the Clinton campaign hinting at how different example of such plans would serve as models for the national plan. The Bush campaign had not promised any national plan, but rather to look into tort reform and other administrative changes to remove costs from the system so that more money would end up actually providing care.

 

In September of 1993 President Clinton gave a speech before a joint session of congress announcing the plan. The political ball was in play. During the next year there were investigations and committees trying to get a consensus on the plans in the House and Senate to have a vote. News articles every day detailed the vices and virtues of the different plans, and how similar plans worked in other countries around the world.

 

Well, this brings me to my part of the story. In the late spring or summer of 1994 my company came out with an announcement about the elimination of medical benefits in our retirement plan taking place after year ?? (I don't remember the details of the grandfather clause.) You see at the time there was a feeling in the air that it was inevitable that some sort of national heath care was going to pass that would provide coverage to all American's.

 

[sPECULATION]By making this move at this time, my company was looking for how they could reduce costs by taking advantage of a program that did not yet exist. It provided additional political pressure on passage of the bill, as several thousand more people were suddenly seeing themselves as reliant upon such a government sponsored universal health system.[/sPECULATION] Mine was not the only company to make such a move at the time. Mine did however later restructure to provide retirement benefits, albeit with more out of pocket cost to the covered.

 

The point of this is that estimating the cost of such a plan is nearly impossible. In the current market system companies use their health plan as one of the ways they compete for good employees. This means that there is competition to provide better coverage at lower costs to get the lucrative contracts with corporate America. When the federal government steps in and sets minimum standards for the "national plan" there is a tendency to make that the universal standard. While there is still competition for price, the competition for coverage is greatly reduced. The next step is that the market loses control of the content of the coverage as the government's "standards committee" dictates what is in and out of the national plan. Once the plan is in place you need to consider the political ramifications of the cost. Removing something from the plan undoubtedly creates "victims"; the poor folks who are suddenly faced with the daunting costs of medical expenses that are no longer covered by the government plan, but are essential to their survival or thriving. On the fringe are the constant requests to broaden the plan to include those who are not currently covered, "victims" of exclusion.

 

There is no place for the plan to go except bigger and more expensive. You either increase taxes to cover the additional cost, or begin to restrict service to reduce the cost. But instead of being done in an economy driven by competition, it is an exercise in political monopoly of the industry. That is the root of my fear of what I will term "creeping socialism". A hybrid system like we have now in the USA, where there is limited federal government assistance in the realm of health care, is to me a good compromise that allows for both the competition of capitalism, and the humanitarian benefits of pooled resources. But I will fight tooth and nail to prevent the creep of this system into a monolithic government boondoggle.

 

It is unscientific to admit that less control is better. But that is the repeated mistake with socialism. Everyone thinks they will have the better solution and do better than everyone else has done in the past, but in the end a free system proves superior.

 

Bill

[CraigD]

my guess would be 60% of the US is opposed to living in socialism

My guess would depend on what is meant by “living in socialism”.

 

If one considers a society that answers “should” the question "On the whole, do you think it should or should not be the government's responsibility to provide a decent standard of living for the elderly?" to be one “living in socialism”, then this 6/15/2005 CBS News/New York Times Poll of 1,111 adults indicates that about 80% of Americans support it, vs. 16% opposed.

 

If one considers “living in socialism” to be renouncing all private property ownership in favor of collective ownership, then I suspect (but don’t have on hand data to support) that many more that 60% of Americans would be opposed.

[jackson33]

the point of my argument is explained in your reply. i call it "degree of" and most try to pin a particular form. what you wish for a society and the next person are likely different but one will have a higher degree. then lets go to the 300M that live here. some one or maybe 30 million, would prefer to have government supply and pay for their total existence. the few as myself prefer no government handouts. if i or we need something, without means to acquire it we know how to get it. get a job, work long and hard enough to obtain this on my own.

 

since your picking on the elderly, i will do the same. if a person has worked and produced 10 years of income, some assistance is available. if this is not enough its the failure of the individual to achieve this desire and generally over 50-60 years of living. why is it you think that 80% would prefer they should not have to work for their own old age needs. or put another way, why not just say they prefer every one else should pay for any needs when old.

 

as i said before, most here think when government does, its not their neighbor who pays the bill. this is ignorance or lack of knowledge. the most paying for the least, only works till the most are the ones with the least...

[Pyrotex]

pyrotex; no sir, at this time i am still in the majority. ...yes, i have set view on the history of this Nation. the stories of the founders and all they paid in life, for the privilege to set a national trend in motion and the thought that must have gone into the process....

Apparently a LOT of you didn't vote in the election of 2006. :)

 

Lemme tell you, I fully agree with your ideals. I wish everybody was a self-starter, and willing to be responsible for their own lives, as you and I are. I wish everybody looked up to Franklin, Washington and Jefferson (and the Adams boys) as role models to follow. I wish Lewis and Clark were every child's heroes. I wish everybody took pride in the labor of their own hands and minds--and derived pleasure from the doing of it. Damn straight! And amen!

 

But would that mean we could throw away Social Security and all the various insurances (both voluntary and mandatory) that provide "safety nets"?

 

No. Social and financial disasters happen. Period. Wars happen. Hurricanes and tornadoes and floods happen. And they sweep up the industrious as well as the lazy. The Great Depression didn't happen just to the wastrels and stupid. The deterioration of our central cities didn't affect just the slackers and the careless.

 

The stories of our founding fathers (and mothers) and the great migration out West are inspiring as hell. But how many of those self-reliant, strong, independent people died from causes beyond their control? How many folks just like you died of starvation in the Great Depression? Or in any of our Great Disasters, like the San Francisco earthquake of 1907?

 

I applaud self-reliance. But I don't see any nobility or righteousness in having a social economic system that lets people die for no good reason.

[CraigD]

why is it you think that 80% would prefer they should not have to work for their own old age needs.

I make no such claim.

 

In an effort to substantiate jackson33’s “guess” that “60% of the US is opposed to living in socialism”, I located a survey showing that, asked the question "On the whole, do you think it should or should not be the government's responsibility to provide a decent standard of living for the elderly?", 80% polled replied “should”, 16% replied “should not”.

 

I believe this statistic, based on a less vague question and supported by survey data rather than a guess, is a better indication of American attitudes toward government welfare programs than jackson33’s implication that the majority of Americans support “my purpose. no socialism, less government and more personal responsibility.”

 

By way of a general suggestion for maintaining a high standard in writing here at hypography, I recommend that posts that offer statistics adhere to the hypography’s ground rule “In general, back up your claims by using links or references.”

[hallenrm]

Since the title of the thread doesn't seem to suggest that it is limited to Health Insurance in USA only, let me briefly tell my thoughts about it in India. Helth Insurance here seems to be a syndication of the Insurance companies and the private Health Care sector, at the cost of the health of the client.

 

People take Health insurance policy because of their fear, that if they fall sick and have not enough financial resources no one will take care of them. After taking a policy they become somewhat complacent about their personal health care.

Institutions like private hospitals, who are authorized to deliver health care, exploit the client often by prolonging the stay, or recommending unneccessary clinical tests, that give them additional revenue.

 

As the projected costs of the health care increases, because of the above two factors, the premiums are hiked.

 

I fail to see any traces of socialism, read a system for common good, in this system:)

[HydrogenBond]

Health insurance, as an industry, works using capitalist's principles. But on the other hand, the consumer is forced into a socialist structure to make the capitalism work for the industry. Those who do not consume medical resources do not get a rebate at the end of the year.

 

For example, if I was heating my home with oil, I could set up a payment plan to spread out the payments over the year. If at the end of the year, I payed more than I consumed, I would get a rebate. The excess would not be way taken from me and given to someone else who used more than their payments or to other who couldn't afford to pay. I would be given that choice. This is capitalism for both industry and consumer. Health insurance is capitialism for the industry but forced socialism for the consumer, with many forced to pay for stuff they don't use.

 

The way the industry pulls the wool over our eyes is connected to gambling. They are sort of like the bookie. They give one a point spread of health and then we gamble. The extra money one doesn't get back, is the payment to the bookie. Or the right to gamble requires one pay the bookie. In the case of health insurance, winning the bet allows one to use medical resources (betting on sickness). While losing the bet means one doesn't use the health system but has to pay the bookie. As far as I know gambling is illegal in most states.

 

Insurance is the most dishonest form of gambling because it forces a socialists pooling system to cover it butt. In other words, if a bookie from Vegas set the odds for the superbowl and the betters clean house, the bookie is not allowed to raise his book fee or to steal from other gamblers to pay off the winners. He would get bumped off. The insurance companies welch on bets all the time by dipping into the hidden socialist pool to cover their gambling debts.