Is Health Insurance Socialism?

[InfiniteNow]

I've been paying $300 a month for 16 months to stay alive. Please, do try to argue with me that I should be responsible for ALL of it. I make a good income, am at a good place, and have good people around me... but I can't live if I don't get refills, and it sure would be nice if I could save for a child's education instead of paying for daily survival. (do the math... that's ~$10/day to stay alive). That's the problem with evolution, eh? Societies evolve, too...

[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?

 

 

Dov

[jackson33]

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... :eek: 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? :steering:

 

1- i was a history/government major in school, knew Louis Lamoure, have lived in places where to west was still the west. so maybe i am biased to what was the US. my concept and many of what got us to where we are or that reason not being "socialism", are no doubt different.

 

2- my opposition to where the line is or should be is based on where the line has come from. in some society this line means all things. you may not understand this but, we have through socialism created a society, which demands total care. you are and many in this debate are showing just such an attitude.

 

3- no sir, i am my brothers keeper, so to speak, but in my world. i cannot much as i would like help those i do not know. if i see real need, which is a reality in life, i will and do help. i will tell you this is so much part of what i feel i am, never have i used the charity deduction on the tax forms.

 

AGAIN, need is subjective to an attitude. the needs of one person over another are not measurable by government of concepts of groups. they are very personal and most i have known in need, would have argued the idea they were in need, to begin with...

 

postscript; i am a lucky person and have few needs. if i didn't like my 15 yo 17 inch TV, i could easily afford the largest flat panel available. additionally i have been eligible for disability for 13 years. the idea to accept this and not try to do something never occurred to me. my dad, his dad and his dad would have done the same w/o choice.

[jackson33]

there is no national "auto insurance" program, no national "educational" program or nation "road building" program. there are some requirements based on many things where the national interest are implied.

 

US hiways and interstates are maintained by road taxes you and every truck pays for permits and/or fuel. this money is basically returned to the states for partial use to maintain, improve or build the US systems. all city, state, farm or county road are the responsibility of the entity which wants them. likewise states tax fuel and require permits to collect there share of cost.

 

auto insurance is mandated by all states, to protect those that have insurance. if you cannot afford insurance, you are not allowed to drive a car, legally. this is very much what "health insurance", is except no one can be denied health care.

 

education is provided by local and state entities. the federal government is getting involved, but for importance, as seen by politicians, to the future of the nation. this is argued daily and many have opted out of public schools, by the way which numbers are increasing. if this is a good example of a socialized programs, i would suggest a review of results are in order.

 

as for police, fire and emergency departments; they are entirely local and paid for by the property taxes of the residents. (as are schools) these are units involved with "state rights", which are vital to the peoples of any state.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Jackson: I'd say if you're getting your conception of "Frontier America" from Louis L'amour, you've DEFINITELY got a romanticized idea of it.

 

i am a lucky person and have few needs.

 

Good for you. Some people aren't. Screw 'em? Your personal contribution to charity may not be enough. If people were not required to contribute to Social Security, would they? They're not required to have health insurance, and look where that got us.

 

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.

 

Ahh Liebeck! Everyone gets this wrong. There are a lot of frivolous lawsuits out there, but this ain't one of them.

 

el facto! (of the established legal variety.)

 

She's just lucky she didn't DRINK that coffee.

 

TFS

[jackson33]

I've been paying $300 a month for 16 months to stay alive. Please, do try to argue with me that I should be responsible for ALL of it. I make a good income, am at a good place, and have good people around me... but I can't live if I don't get refills, and it sure would be nice if I could save for a child's education instead of paying for daily survival. (do the math... that's ~$10/day to stay alive). That's the problem with evolution, eh? Societies evolve, too...

 

since you have supplied additional information, i feel compelled to respond. its a little more clear where you come from with your opinions. individual cases are sometimes hard to justify and i would not intentionally suggest you case is different. many cancer, heart, kidney, HIV and others victims pay a great deal for services and medications. big pharmacy does have programs for those w/o means and there are programs. you may not qualify for income levels and for some reason did not have insurance.

 

however we are discussing a national view of many things that are simply being mis represented. its gone to saying things that are not correct. i may show passion and may not seem to be sympathetic to those in some way in need, but its my personal belief these needs can be tended to, with out government involvement. the US was founded, formed and has developed with certain principles one of which was "self responsibility". this to me is a must, for all people. the latest tragic example was Hurricane Katrina and New Orleans. 6 or 10k people died, for the most part relying on local government to save them from things no government could. the individual has to be responsible for some things and this needs to be re installed in the mental process. since you participate in science discussion, you must understand the time will come when people, will have to react w/o any help, much less from some group, that will probably know no more than those effected.

[TheFaithfulStone]

6,000 to 10,000? I don't think those figures are correct.

 

Your views on the "Katrina Situation" lack coherence. No body expected to be "saved" from the weather, but the didn't expect FEMA to sit on it's *** and do nothing while Wal-Mart (WAL-MART!) sent aid.

 

TFS

[jackson33]

Jackson: I'd say if you're getting your conception of "Frontier America" from Louis L'amour, you've DEFINITELY got a romanticized idea of it.

 

 

 

Good for you. Some people aren't. Screw 'em? Your personal contribution to charity may not be enough. If people were not required to contribute to Social Security, would they? They're not required to have health insurance, and look where that got us.

 

 

 

Ahh Liebeck! Everyone gets this wrong. There are a lot of frivolous lawsuits out there, but this ain't one of them.

 

el facto! (of the established legal variety.)

 

She's just lucky she didn't DRINK that coffee.

 

TFS

 

the original SS program is the one i most use to explain a good program turned socialistic. what it was in "35", is night and day to today. by the way it was also voluntary.

 

i may not be realistic to how my country formed. but its my view and i will give credit to all that gave me the opportunities that i have had and currently have. to be thankful, grateful are not bad things. selfishness and greed are, which implies socialism. the want to have what some other have....even though those things were earned.

[jackson33]

6,000 to 10,000? I don't think those figures are correct.

 

Your views on the "Katrina Situation" lack coherence. No body expected to be "saved" from the weather, but the didn't expect FEMA to sit on it's *** and do nothing while Wal-Mart (WAL-MART!) sent aid.

 

TFS

 

i am not going here. FEMA, better not act w/o state and local authority. i am a states right person...

 

most every person rescued had the same response. "didn't think it would be that bad"...

 

think your right on figure, probably about 3k...

[eric l]

 

selfishness and greed are, which implies socialism. the want to have what some other have....even though those things were earned.

 

Should I take this as an insult, or simply as a misunderstanding ? To me, "socialism" is the awareness that I have had opportunities that some others never had, and that this makes it my honnest duty to try and create the same opportunities for others, or to let other bennifit from some of the advantages I had.

You may have earned something through the work you have done, but how about the millions of people who will never have the chance to earn the same things for the same amount of work or more ?

[InfiniteNow]

there is no national "auto insurance" program...auto insurance is mandated by all states, to protect those that have insurance. if you cannot afford insurance, you are not allowed to drive a car, legally. this is very much what "health insurance", is except no one can be denied health care.

I understand your point (and appreciate your response to my post, btw), but it's a false comparison.

 

Not everyone has a car, so not everyone needs auto insurance.

 

A good story reminded me of this on NPR this morning:

NPR : Comparing California, Massachusetts Health Plans

 

 

 

[EDIT] Just to clarify, that money I paid (~$300/month) was ON TOP of my existing insurance, for which I also made contributions with every paycheck.

[Pyrotex]

...knew Louis Lamoure

Wow. I read many of his novels. My Dad introduced me to his books. Lucky you.

...through socialism created a society, which demands total care

You have a damn good point. However, I would not say our system "demands total care". Rather, we have a system that attempts to achieve a reasonable balance between paying for care -- and paying for the consequences of NOT paying for care. The system is not perfect, obviously. Many people still fall through the cracks. Some of them do so because of their own moral failures. I am not advocating trying to help every last individual.

...i cannot much as i would like help those i do not know.

Again, I agree you have a valid point. That's what makes this issue so contentious and difficult to discuss. There are indeed arguments on both sides. And I would be a jerk if I just dismissed your POV. One way that I can help people I do not know is through an intermediate agency. However, then only a fraction of my money (90%? ... 10%?) gets to the intended recipients. That's another issue to be dealt with. Or not. :P

...i have been eligible for disability for 13 years. the idea to accept this and not try to do something never occurred to me.....

Good for you. I have been eligible for disability for 55 years, and I have the same identical attitude. I'm 60 and still work full time as an engineer. Hurray for us!

 

But there are still people out there -- children, especially -- who have no resources of money or of responsible adults to care for them, who could become tax-paying, law-abiding contributors to society... IF...

 

if...

[jackson33]

Should I take this as an insult, or simply as a misunderstanding ? To me, "socialism" is the awareness that I have had opportunities that some others never had, and that this makes it my honnest duty to try and create the same opportunities for others, or to let other bennifit from some of the advantages I had.

You may have earned something through the work you have done, but how about the millions of people who will never have the chance to earn the same things for the same amount of work or more ?

 

this is neither. if you have something you want other to have, fine and you should do what you want. donate it directly and 100% will get used by that you chose. give it to charity and 65 % will reach a need. give it to government and 10 to 15 % will. if nothing else, invest in a labor friendly company and reap the profits.

 

good idea take what you gained and create a business that many can work and become what you have. no problem, but giving to government and expecting this result makes little sense to me.

 

actually very few go from nothing to something the first try. few ever do just working for some one else, but to achieve with in some one else's dream is not rare. my personal opinion, most have opportunities many times over in their work life. its not my theory, but some think many folks reject success in some way or another. turn down a transfer, promotion, authority or just quit before taking on responsibility. the idea of success or achievement is also subjective. the millions that we call migrant workers, come work and leave with more in one year then they could in their home country in a lifetime. many also stay and consider themselves as successful as you consider yourself.

[Pyrotex]

there is no national "auto insurance" program, no national "educational" program or nation "road building" program. ...as for police, fire and emergency departments; they are entirely local and paid for by the property taxes...

Everything you said is correct, as far as I know.

 

My point was, if you own an automobile in most states, you don't get to "volunteer" to have auto insurance -- it's mandatory. If you have property in most states, paying taxes for public education is mandatory. If you buy gasoline, paying the road tax (which can exceed the actual cost of the gas) is mandatory. In most states, you cannot get a mortgage on a house unless you buy home insurance; it's mandatory.

 

Now, since these insurances, taxes and fees are indeed mandatory (given the contingent conditions) then it would seem that these could be called "socialism". If not, why not?

 

I request you not point out that folks can choose to not have houses, cars and other property. For folks with any ambition at all, these things are indeed requirements.

[jackson33]

I understand your point (and appreciate your response to my post, btw), but it's a false comparison.

 

Not everyone has a car, so not everyone needs auto insurance.

 

A good story reminded me of this on NPR this morning:

NPR : Comparing California, Massachusetts Health Plans

 

 

 

[EDIT] Just to clarify, that money I paid (~$300/month) was ON TOP of my existing insurance, for which I also made contributions with every paycheck.

 

and i agree with you. some one mentioned socialized success and this was one of several point. the entire post was directed at reputing what was suggested to be the success of socialism, none of which are or the current duties of US government.

 

as to state involvement with any program i have no problem. this then becomes the advantage or disadvantage of that state. a few years back Wisconsin went 100% for folks on welfare, with residency limits lifted. they soon became a destination for the real free loaders and have since become the hardest state to receive any assistance. full circle in 40 years. think Connecticut has the best cooperate laws (even better than Nevada) and many major firms have an office and call this their home base. note; none of this has been or is socialism.

 

you are a good example of taking on responsibility. i find it hard for you to think socialism, will in the end help you or that you could even think it could.

the current unfortunate truth is many get what you pay for, at little or no cost. in the true social scheme, your care would be reduced to that who take for granted what you work so hard for...

[C1ay]

Not everyone has a car, so not everyone needs auto insurance.

 

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...

[jackson33]

Everything you said is correct, as far as I know.

 

My point was, if you own an automobile in most states, you don't get to "volunteer" to have auto insurance -- it's mandatory. If you have property in most states, paying taxes for public education is mandatory. If you buy gasoline, paying the road tax (which can exceed the actual cost of the gas) is mandatory. In most states, you cannot get a mortgage on a house unless you buy home insurance; it's mandatory.

 

Now, since these insurances, taxes and fees are indeed mandatory (given the contingent conditions) then it would seem that these could be called "socialism". If not, why not?

 

I request you not point out that folks can choose to not have houses, cars and other property. For folks with any ambition at all, these things are indeed requirements.

 

my vises, smoking and a few beers every day, make for some heavy annual taxes. however to mandate a tax is already socialism. your pro, remember. my taxes according to the original concepts in the US, were to cover cost of government and the defense of my homeland. SS mandated tax as its now taken, had intentions which were dropped years ago and the Medicare tax has become a joke. all this is pure socialism and should not be.

 

we do complain and look where its gotten me, at least to the view of a few. the only end result is for every person to work for nothing and receive whatever some political group thinks i need. if there is no place else to get money, then the limits will be the cost of governing (defense gone) and since this can not be lowered, the people will suffer from lack of all care and motivated labor reduced to none. this might sound like gibberish, but this is exactly what is in Cuba...today.