Is Health Insurance Socialism?

[TheBigDog]

So is taxation socialism?

Good question Mike. I would like to move forward trying to answer that.

 

Taxation is not socialism. How the taxes are spent can be socialism.

 

Socialism is generally defined as "government control of production and distribution."

 

If the supply of health care is controlled by the government then it is by definition socialism (socialized medicine). Some nations have a completely socialized structure of medicine. Others have a hybrid of capitalistic and socialized medicine. There may not be any purely pay for service systems of medicine left in the world.

 

Health Insurance is not socialism, not until it is controlled by the government, and then only when the government dictates all the care options. Some portions of society always seek to add responsibilities to the government. Other portions of society always seek to remove responsibilities from the government. In the middle is the debate.

 

I am a big believer in state's rights, and keeping things away from the federal level. Health care is a prime example of that. Each of the states has a unique economy and a large enough population to support many shared public health care options. And it gives us 50 opportunities to get the formula correct. Some states may opt for a more shared approach, and others will opt for a more individual approach. The grand experiment happens in 50 places at the same time, and each may find a completely different solution that fits the sensibilities of the citizens. This promotes competition among the states with always bolsters the economy. When federal actions are taken then you eliminate competition among the states for jobs based upon that variable. Each time you eliminate one of the variables of competition for jobs you weaken the ability of the US to compete for jobs on the world market.

 

The US is a big country with a diverse economy. It is in a unique situation for its ability to have multiple health care systems by keeping it at a state level. Smaller countries need to go "all in" with a plan due to the mathematics of their geography, population and economic base. The US also has a lively and dynamic political system that is constantly attempting to reshape itself to meet the political will of the people.

 

The biggest problem I see with giving control to the government of health care (or pretty much anything) is getting it to relinquish control when things are going wrong. As soon as the government starts "giving" things to the citizens, you are taking away from those citizens when you want to end the program. So the person who wants to end the program becomes the political bad guy. This is how the slippery slope of socialism happens. You fight like hell to keep the government out of things, because once they are in, getting them back out again is damn near impossible.

 

I believe in some level of hybrid health care. But the less the federal government has to do with it, the better off we will all be in the end.

 

Bill

[Michaelangelica]

Socialism is generally defined as "government control of production and distribution."

 

If the supply of health care is controlled by the government then it is by definition socialism (socialized medicine).

Others have a hybrid of capitalistic and socialized medicine. There may not be any purely pay for service systems of medicine left in the world.

 

You fight like hell to keep the government out of things, because once they are in, getting them back out again is damn near impossible.

 

I believe in some level of hybrid health care. But the less the federal government has to do with it, the better off we will all be in the end.

 

Bill

Interesting post we too have a hybrid system State and Fedral.

 

still there is that fear of the 'S' word.

getting them back out again is damn near impossible.

 

In the last 30 years here governments have been divesting themselves of many "non-core" activities, banking, insurance, energy, telecommunications. I aways find it funny that the Government floats say "Telecom", and sells to us, what we already own.:confused:

Taxation by another name really

The only time they have run into serious opposition from the people is when they have tried to sell control over large water resources

decent health care is expensive and full of special interest groups which distort the market (Specialist Colleges, Pharmaceutical companies).

One positive is that Spending Lots of Money on health care certainly sharpens government's minds on prevention and we have big anti-smoking and drink-driving campaigns

But I think universal health care is every-one's right.

Also it is a country's international responsibility, especially the richest one, as we are all so interdependent now. So control of things like TB, bird flu, malaria HIV/Aids, hepatitis, STD's, parasites, viral pandemics, anti-biotic resistant bacteria etc. These diseases improperly, or only partially treated, effects everyone on our planet.

It is a tragedy that we now have drug-resistant-TB in a war we nearly won because the USA only partially treated its homeless. (1.7 Bil. people will die of TB this year).

getting them back out again is damn near impossible

I worry more about getting governments out of Anti -Human -Rights -Laws and Draconian Anti-Terror Laws that impinge on the democratic process.

Governments always seem to want more power. You daily hear them passing laws, rarely do you hear about them repealing laws. Horses and camels still have right-of-way on the Sydney Harbour Bridge!

They don't like spending money on something that does not contribute to their own aggrandisement (Health, Education and Welfare).

[TheBigDog]

It is a tragedy that we now have drug-resistant-TB in a war we nearly won because the USA only partially treated its homeless. (1.7 Bil. people will die of TB this year).

Astounding! Nearly 30% of the earth's human population will die in 2007 from TB spread by the homeless of the United States. Where do you get this stuff?

 

Bill

[Freddy]

From the World Health Organization:

"The World Health Organization estimates that up to 50 million persons worldwide may be infected with drug resistant strains of TB. Also, 300,000 new cases of MDR-TB are diagnosed around the world each year and 79 percent of the MDR-TB cases now show resistance to three or more drugs.5"

Multidrug-Resistant Tuberculosis Fact Sheet - American Lung Association site

[Michaelangelica]

Astounding! Nearly 30% of the earth's human population will die in 2007 from TB spread by the homeless of the United States. Where do you get this stuff?

 

Bill

Yes you are right. That does seem high.

I got the figure from "The Odd Body 2 by S Juan

He does say "people currently suffering. ". .acording to WHO

 

Checking the WHO website they say

It is estimated that 1.7 million deaths resulted from TB in 2004. Both the highest number of deaths and the highest mortality per capita are in the WHO Africa region, where HIV has led to rapid growth of the TB epidemic, and increases the likelihood of dying from TB.

incidence is put at

8 918,000 (?)

and

HIV and TB

 

HIV and TB form a lethal combination, each speeding the other's progress. HIV weakens the immune system. Someone who is HIV-positive and infected with TB bacilli is many times more likely to become sick with TB than someone infected with TB bacilli who is HIV-negative. TB is a leading cause of death among people who are HIV-positive. It accounts for about 13% of AIDS deaths worldwide. In Africa, HIV is the single most important factor determining the increased incidence of TB in the past 10 years.

and on DR TB

what is more, strains of TB resistant to all major anti-TB drugs have emerged. Drug-resistant TB is caused by inconsistent or partial treatment, when patients do not take all their medicines regularly for the required period

WHO | Tuberculosis

 

At the NAID website

Each year, 54 million people are infected with the tubercle bacillus (Mycobacterium tuberculosis), 6.8 million develop clinical disease and 2.4 million people die of tuberculosis. Tuberculosis is responsible for 5% of all deaths worldwide, and 9.6% of adult deaths in the 15-59 age group. Tuberculosis kills more women worldwide than all causes of maternal mortality. The case fatality rate of tuberculosis is high; approximately 50% of untreated cases die of the disease.

The Global Burden of Tuberculosis, Blueprint for Tuberculosis Vaccine Development, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health

That sounds abit more reasonable?

5% of all deaths worldwide,

on drug rsisitant:-

Until the mid-1980s, tuberculosis in the United States had been declining, a trend which probably began over 70 years previously due in large part to improved living conditions and public health measures. Then starting in 1986 there was a dramatic rise in the number of new cases (to 27,000 in 1992). This increase has been attributed to a number of factors, including deterioration in the public health infrastructure, rising numbers of homeless individuals and the growing AIDS epidemic. . . . costs of this tuberculosis control have been and continue to be enormous. New York alone expended $750 million between 1993-1996 to protect hospitals and jails, assure compliance with treatment and reduce multidrug resistant tuberculosis.

 

it is ambiguous but I would say that it is 1.7B currently suffering from TB Which while not as bad as deaths. It still is shocking.

One-third of the world's population is infected with TB.

Fighting TUBERCULOSIS - Fighting AIDS, TB and Malaria - About the Global Fund - The Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria

It is numer 2 in the WHO top 10, after hepatitis, with Aids not even getting a look in

 

Thanks for the correction. I just copied the figures without looking at them properly:)

 

PS at the above website; costs for fixing the problem do not seem high

Drugs for DOTS can cost only US$10 per person for the full treatment course (six to eight months).21 DOTS is successful and has a success rate of up to 80% in the poorest countries, prevents new infections by curing infectious patients.[22]

 

It has been estimated that the gap is U$300 million a year to address the TB epidemic in low and middle-income countries.[23]

[Freddy]

Of course the rise of new TB cases in the US has nothing to do with illegal immigration?

WorldNetDaily: Illegal aliens threaten U.S. medical system

[TheBigDog]

#

In 2004, the CDC reported that 7.8 percent of tuberculosis cases in the U.S. were resistant to isoniazid, the first line drug used to treat TB.1

#

The CDC also reported that 1.0 percent of tuberculosis cases in the U.S. were resistant to both isoniazid and rifampin.2 Rifampin is the drug most commonly used with isoniazid.

#

Overall, the number of MDR-TB cases were reported below 100 for the first time ever in 2003 but increased again to 101 in 2004.3

#

Only 27 percent of primary MDR-TB cases were in U.S. born persons. The percentage of U.S. born persons with MDR-TB has remained stable at approximately 0.6 percent since 2000. The proportion of MDR-TB cases among foreign-born persons has increased from 26 percent in 1993 to 73 percent of MDR-TB cases in 2004.4

These numbers from the American Heart association seem much lower than the other numbers indicated for the US in the other posts. I am not sure the methods by which all the data is gathered that would cause such a disparity.

 

Bill

[Michaelangelica]

Cant find up-to-date Oz figures.

but the fact that until recently we gave the homeless nad alcoholics an 18 month holiday in a TB ward has lead to this:

Despite an overall decline in incidence, tuberculosis remains a significant problem among the aged, Aborigines, Maoris, and immigrants from countries with a high incidence of tuberculosis. The pool of tuberculosis infection in Australia is again growing, and the HIV/AIDS epidemic has created the potential for a resurgence of the disease. Not withstanding these pockets of increased risk of infection however, the overall incidence of tuberculosis in the current Australian and New Zealand populations has now fallen to such low levels that the long-term aim of control, even elimination, of tuberculosis is potentially realisable over the next few decades

while in the un-socialised USA

Death rate extrapolations for USA for Tuberculosis: 930 per year, 77 per month, 17 per week, 2 per day,

 

1,112 deaths in the USA 1998

776 deaths in the US 2000

TB is the world's leading cause of death from a single infectious organism,

Deaths from Tuberculosis - WrongDiagnosis.com

and

again my point about health care being an international issue and international responsibility

"The projects are numerous and wide ranging. For example, the Centenary Institute of Cancer Medicine and Cell Biology at the University of Sydney hopes to develop and test novel vaccines to prevent tuberculosis. This would be a major medical breakthrough because tuberculosis is a worldwide health problem killing two million people every year," Senator Patterson said.

 

The funding for health and medical research in Australia was doubled by the Commonwealth in the 1999-2000 Federal Budget, as a result of the Wills Review.

 

You also have the plague in the USA. Oz got rid of it in about 1905.

so much for socialised medicine

[Pyrotex]

Cant find up-to-date Oz figures.

but the fact that until recently we gave the homeless and alcoholics an 18 month holiday in a TB ward...You also have the plague in the USA. Oz got rid of it in about 1905. so much for socialised medicine

Thank you, MA!

 

Again, I would not want a Socialist form of government. I feel strongly that capital should be in the hands of the People, not the State.

 

On the other hand, there are specific problems, especially in the realm of Health and Disease Prevention, where it just makes good sense to ensure that everybody in the body politic is vaccinated, insured, and "coerced" to follow certain medical programs to completion. For the good of everyone.

 

The risks of not doing so can be disastrous to everyone. Even to those red-blooded John Waynes out there who don't want guv'mint telling them what to do. Disease prevention is not "socialist" or "capitalistic" or "democratic" or "fascist".

 

Disease prevention is just good common sense. A similar case can be made for health insurance, IMHHHHHHO.

[jackson33]

pyrotex; government cannot be responsible, in fact or implied on what a person does or does not do to prevent health problems. personal responsibility is a built in traditional method that we have used in this country, since it was formed and served us well.

 

we are subjected to daily promotions to have this or that checked as it is. in order to comply with the suggested procedures (not mandated) we would have to live in a hospital. not to mention the government and/or the AMA have a poor track record on suggested do and dont's. coffee-caffeine, salt-no salt, red meat-fish and a host of what became ill advised and incorrect assertions.

 

people that live in liberal, socialistic or under government mandates have little choice but to accept what their government says. if you want something you are required to vote for, pay for or some performance deemed by government to receive that something. this is socialism, pure and simple. the John Wayne types take on the responsibility for themselves, their family and neighbors to get these and other issues resolved. this is conservative, rationally and capitalistic system. the disaster is in acceptance of one over the other and you know my choice...

[Michaelangelica]

pyrotex; government cannot be responsible,

Government is only the legislative arm of the people.

So, as a people, yes, you are responsible

Don't you have compulsory vaccination programmes for measles and polio etc?.

Are you going to have it for Cervical Cancer?

[Pyrotex]

pyrotex; government cannot be responsible, in fact or implied on what a person does or does not do to prevent health problems.......

Of course it can! this is rather painfully obvious.

[Michaelangelica]

Re: Is Health Insurance Socialism? - Today, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackson33 View Post

pyrotex; government cannot be responsible, in fact or implied on what a person does or does not do to prevent health problems.......

Of course it can! this is rather painfully obvious.

The government (i.e., the people) have to be responsible.

We are talking about diseases that are global

 

What is the USA doing about TB or malaria?

 

michael

Five years of Guantanamo:

Justice delayed is justice denied.

[jackson33]

The government (i.e., the people) have to be responsible.

We are talking about diseases that are global

 

What is the USA doing about TB or malaria?

 

michael

Five years of Guantanamo:

Justice delayed is justice denied.

 

 

a great deal of health problems around the world are cause from social practice and hygiene. hygiene, takes on everything from washing hand at appropriate times to sewage. also ecoli, kills many more than a few in the US and around the world, rarely ever mentioned. this is hygiene. if you get into virus induced sickness, there are many working on the problem.

 

my point is the US government cannot be responsible to tell the people of another nation how to live their lives and in the US they can only advise.

beyond this there is no obligation. i can tell a nation how to prevent many things that permeate from so simple causes, but could never impose the simplest of action. as the government (people) i am not liable (responsible)but my opinion is now known.

 

AIDS is a 100% preventable death resulting problem. the US spends billions both here and abroad, on prevention and treatment. many other illnesses have been eradicated or nearly so for actions taken by the US and other government programs. all this is humanitarian, not obligatory which is my point. church groups, advocate groups, peace corps and many more entities are active in many places. none of this counts when a patient goes home and acts or doesn't change the very things that cause the problems...

[Michaelangelica]

a great deal of health problems around the world are cause from social practice and hygiene. hygiene, takes on everything from washing hand at appropriate times

Yes I agree. American Doctors would kill far fewer people if they washed their hands.

Why Don’t Doctors and Nurses Wash Their Hands?

The lack of adequate hand washing by our health care providers continues to be the primary cause of infection in our country’s health care facilities.

Americans Mad and Angry

 

my point is the US government cannot be responsible to tell the people of another nation how to live their lives and in the US they can only advise.

beyond this there is no obligation. i can tell a nation how to prevent many things that permeate from so simple causes, but could never impose the simplest of action. as the government (people) i am not liable (responsible)but my opinion is now known.

I am not talking about heath in another Nation.

You have a responsibility as a First Word Nation to get it right for the rest of us on the planet.

You can make excuses for Third World Counties but not the USA

Why do you still have The Plaque?

Plague, or a subtype of Plague, affects less than 200,000 people in the US population.

1 in 7 die from it

Prevalence and Incidence of Plague - WrongDiagnosis.com

 

AIDS is a 100% preventable death resulting problem.

Aids is not the biggest killer on the planet

HIV Estimate

 

At the end of 2003, an estimated 1,039,000 to 1,185,000 persons in the United States were living with HIV/AIDS, with 24-27% undiagnosed and unaware of their HIV infection.1

 

For more information see "A Glance at the HIV/AIDS Epidemic".

 

1Glynn M, Rhodes P. Estimated HIV prevalence in the United States at the end of 2003. National HIV Prevention Conference; June 2005; Atlanta. Abstract 595.

 

Go to top

 

AIDS Cases

 

In 2004, the estimated number of diagnoses of AIDS in the United States was 42,514. Adult and adolescent AIDS cases totaled 42,466 with 31,024 cases in males and 11,442 cases in females. Also in 2004, there were 48 AIDS cases estimated in children under age 13.

 

 

Deaths Due to AIDS

 

In 2004, the estimated number of deaths of persons with AIDS was 15,798, including 15,737 adults and adolescents, and 61 children under age 13.

 

The cumulative estimated number of deaths of persons with AIDS through 2004 is 529,113, including 523,598 adults and adolescents, and 5,515 children under age 13.

 

Basic Statistics | Statistics and Surveillance | Topics | CDC HIV/AIDS

the US spends billions both here and abroad, on prevention and treatment.

Rubbish; Billions??

only if you use the condom after marriage!!

The U.S. government plans to spend $332 million on HIV prevention in 2006, up from $207 million in 2004, in 15 countries in Africa, Asia and the Caribbean. One-third must be spent on programs that promote abstinence, approaches that some public health experts say haven't been proven effective.

. . .

The Bush administration's approach is officially called ABC: Abstinence Before Marriage,

Be faithful in marriage and Condoms for high-risk groups.

But the administration has placed restrictions on how money is spent, and the guidanc

But if Bush does not think it is NICE to have sex before marriage; What hope to underdeveloped Countries have of getting aid?

Get real!

[jackson33]

MA: where you are trying to go with this is a bit confusing. my guess is you have a beef with the US medical system. if this is the case and staying with the theme of this thread, i would suggest 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. when it comes to prevention, even with advise there is simply no means to enforce advice. any person than becomes AIDS infected,

has had years of such advise. diabetes, obesity, skin cancer are just a few that should be non-existent in the US, but are prime problems.

 

if i were to visit a clinic and the medical person or assistant did not wash their hands, my first action would be advice. however;if your in an accident on the road and people try to help you, i suggest you don't worry about it. then the ambulance or emergency folks may be helping several as will the folks when you get to a hospital. where every imaginable germ is likely to be, a hospital, infection is near impossible.

 

in my opinion, the US system is the best available on this planet. to get it right as you say is not consistent to the facts. what you want is the "pay for service" system available to all and free. this will never happen...

[Michaelangelica]

MA: where you are trying to go with this is a bit confusing. my guess is you have a beef with the US medical system.

.

No, no beef, your system, you live with it.(It turned up the wonderful, Dr. Patch Adams, after all)

I just asked the question: "Why are Americans (USAans) frightened of socialism?"

 

I was pointing out that to be a good global citizen on this planet the USA needs some measure of socialism in its health care provisions & services.

For example compulsory vaccination. (This is not just socialism it is communism!)

It would be nice to see some 'socialistic' curbing of TB, Aids, The Palgue etc

 

 

As you say you have the best medical system in the world. You also have the worst of developed nations.

India also has the best medicine in the world.