Is Health Insurance Socialism?

[Michaelangelica]

Insurance is gambling when only the insurer knows the winning odds.

 

You are 'drawing a long bow' equating Gambling with Socialism.

Insurance would not be needed in 'a cradle to grave' socialist system

 

In a true, universal, socialist, Heath Care System, free health care would be provided by the State for all its citizens. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

[Buffy]

...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.

Would love to hear how you'd make this work for medical costs: You get a heart attack hopefully only once in your life. In fact, not everyone does. These things cost $50k or $100k. How's that going to be covered if you get a "rebate" *every year* when your premiums for that year are only a few thousand dollars?

 

Insurance has nothing to do with "socialism": its about spreading risk.

 

Of course some people have a paranoid fear of socialism and see socialists under every rock.

 

The notion that insurance is "gambling" is similarly strained: your payout is limited to your actual loss, so the only way you come out "ahead" is if you die before your first premium payment. Without any way to have a net gain in your financial position, its even less renumerative than the stock market, which is legal in all states.

 

Prohibition against gambling and other vices of course is something that *liberals* engage in to protect people from themselves.

 

Move over Hillary, a few people need some space on your left.

 

Laissez Faire Liberal,

Buffy

[jackson33]

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.

 

and 6000 die every day in the US, today. many for reasons that should not be. auto accidents, murder, over medication, on and on...this is life and like or not it will go on.

 

those self-reliant people are still there in multitudes. they move to Florida in groves and set up house knowing a hurricane may wipe them out this summer or to California, where predictions of Earth Quakes are staggering. many in NYC could die tomorrow for any number of reasons and knowing the rat population there, this may be soon. people move or go to places that are not all that safe all the time and die. those folks that migrated west, populated SF or lived through the depression all had an advantage over us. they knew their fate was in their hands and no entity was going to appear and help.

 

all these folks can insure some of there actions and have the choice. if they choose no and would prefer to lean on you, me or FEMA, then the problem begins. there is no nobility or righteousness in teaching responsibility and the point of my argument. people die from unrealistic expectations all the time, that would live if they acted with some sense of personal responsibility. speeding up for a red light to passing on an upgrade or going ice fishing in the spring.

 

yes, there will be problems in the future, but to teach or think government will some how be available to save the country is not realistic. the more that depend on it now the more that will perish when this time comes. its got nothing to do right, wrong, liberal, conservative or generous. simply put its called getting some sense of personal responsibility back into the equation...

[Pyrotex]

and 6000 die every day in the US, today. many for reasons that should not be....all these folks can insure some of there actions and have the choice. if they choose no and would prefer to lean on you, me or FEMA, then the problem begins. there is no nobility or righteousness in teaching responsibility and the point of my argument. people die from unrealistic expectations all the time, that would live if they acted with some sense of personal responsibility. ...

Well, welcome to the real world.

 

Living responsibly will increase your chances of a long, healthy life, with a nice retirement nestegg. But it carries no guarantee. Even the most responsible people sometimes find themselves with medical conditions that they could not prepare for. And that's the whole point.

 

I am not advocating that government will take care of everybody. Far from it. I'm just saying that a good insurance policy is ... well ... "insurance". And any insurance policy is cheaper if everybody buys in. If only the old and sick were getting insurance, it would be too expensive for anybody. Might as well have no insurance at all.

 

National health insurance makes good business sense. Dollars and sense. It is no more "socialism" than having police departments.

[jackson33]

SS/Medicare, is a socialistic mode of insurance and very much in play today and will be even if one person is paying for two benefits. all any person needs is to have worked 10 years and that person is vested.

 

i have to agree it would seem an old person, incapable of working and going through a catastrophic physical event and having worked 10, preferable 20 or 30 years should be entitled. at least some effort has been placed to wards this end. unfortunately this well intended program already includes any working person who is out of work or disabled from a hang nail. these programs are in trouble today but i would bet my share, in the next ten years more people will qualify for less reason and only those that were the intended people will be left out. this by age requirement and the old folks will have to work longer to pay for the disabled free loader.

 

much of what i said was to show there is NO GUARANTEE. any person knows some one who fell through the cracks or had more than their share of bad luck or been mis-treated by government or society. many states are releasing 60-70-80 year olds from prisons (crowding problems) w/o any hope of survival. people suffer mental problems, have done nothing wrong but have no idea how to get help. the list is long to unfair and it goes to those that were rich and successfully. any guarantee comes from efforts, practices and pure luck.

 

i have never said insurance per say, is socialism. the mandating or giving of this is and the trend is giving- paid for, by those and that which supports government.

[Freddy]

I was listening to the local talk radio show today and the state director of MA new universal health plan was being interviewed. This week people began to sign up for it. He said that so far they have exceeded expectations for both the subsidized plan and the new private pay plans. By law all residents must have health insurance by July 2007. See link:

 

NHP Commonwealth Care Plan

[Michaelangelica]

By law all residents must have health insurance by July 2007.

By law don't you pay taxes?

Why can't insurance be taken from this?

[Pyrotex]

SS/Medicare, is a socialistic mode of insurance and very much in play today...unfortunately this well intended program already includes any working person who is out of work or disabled from a hang nail.....

Jack33,

well, all in all, you have done a good job of representing your case. I can truly see your side of this issue, and for that I thank you. After giving this due consideration, I still feel that some form of across-the-board health insurance would be acceptable, indeed advisable, as long as the cost to the nation was less than the benefits accruing from a healthier population.

 

One thing you might want to consider. As good as you did in presenting your case, you could make it better by avoiding such exaggerations as the one I quoted above. In fact, the current Medicaid system does not recognize "hang nails" as a valid reason for "full disability". The current system is bad enough that you could easily find factual examples that might make your case even better. Stooping to exaggerations has a tendency to make your opponent suspect that you lack real evidence.

 

Good luck.

[Freddy]

By law don't you pay taxes?

Why can't insurance be taken from this?

Absolutely! And all MA taxpayers are. Before the law the taxpayers subsidized the uninsured when they used ER care to the tune of $1 billion per year. With the new law taxpayers will pay for those below the poverty line and partially pay for those up to 300% above the Federal Poverty Line. In theory the program is supposed to pay for itself eventually, but I have serious doubts about that.

[TheBigDog]

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 ?

You are confusing Socialism with Philanthropy.

[eric l]

You are confusing Socialism with Philanthropy.

 

I do not think so. Socialism is an attitude towards a community or society you feel to be part of - or want to be part of. With philantropy, you can "give" to people you do not want to be associated with.

 

Last week-end for example, there was this action day for the "Damien Society", an organisation that tries to erradicate lepra, tb and some other illnesses. I do not feel part of this Damian Society (though I do respect them), nor do I feel myself a leper or tb-patient (and I clearly do not want to be). So, to my understanding, giving to this society is not socialism, but philantropy (I do give to fellow humans).

 

On the other hand, I feel myself a member of the working class, and of the society of senior citizens. What I do for them (either of them or senior members of the working class) is socialism, rather than philantropy : if it improves - even in a small way - their situation as a group, it improves my situation as a member of this group.

[TheBigDog]

I do not think so. Socialism is an attitude towards a community or society you feel to be part of - or want to be part of. With philantropy, you can "give" to people you do not want to be associated with.

I see. You have simply adopted new definitions for these words.

Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to social control.[1] This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system' date=' socialism is often characterized by state or community ownership of the means of production.[/quote']

Philanthropy is the act of donating money, goods, time, or effort to support a charitable cause, usually over an extended period of time and in regard to a defined objective. In a more fundamental sense, philanthropy may encompass any altruistic activity which is intended to promote good or improve human quality of life.

Note the difference. Socialism is a government control, while philanthropy is personal control. Volunteering your money and time to causes you believe in, regardless of your affiliation with those groups, is Philanthropy. You are a philanthropist.

 

Bill

[InfiniteNow]

Why do our subjectively applied labels really matter in this case? You are both off topic now...

 

 

Hey, look at that purple golf shirt over there!

That's not purple you idiot, it's lavender.

 

:esmoking:

[TheBigDog]

Why do our subjectively applied labels really matter in this case? You are both off topic now...

The definition of the word "socialism" is core to the discussion. How that is off topic is beyond me.

 

Bill

[InfiniteNow]

My sense was that eric explicitly began his comment, "To me, socialism is..." and you are arguing with him that his personal interpretation is wrong because it does not match yours or the dictionary entry you've shared.

 

I might be way off base. Give me a PM if needed and we'll make sure we're seeing the same things. We can always come back and delete these few posts to see if definition of thread title terms on the 12th page bears fruit. :esmoking:

[TheBigDog]

Mr. A lives in a small town of 100 people. He starts an internet site and soon earns $1,000,000. He takes half of his money and shares it with the people in the town by his own choice. He is a philanthropist.

 

Mr. B lives in a small town of 100 people. He starts an internet site and soon earns $1,000,000. The town's people decide he has too much money for one man. They take half of his money and divide it among the other town's people. That town is socialist.

 

The first is characterized by giving, the second is characterized by taking. Jackson implied that socialism is motivated by greed (I would say envy) and others may see it as altruism. I guess the motivation is a matter of perspective. But the difference between the two scenarios is certainly not purple vs. lavender.

 

One might consider themselves "a good socialist" because they see it as their duty to share their fortune with society. So they "volunteer" what is required by law. The separating fact remains that socialism does not leave the individual with a choice, no matter how the individual feels about the transaction.

 

Mike made mention of how in Australia they rounded up people with TB for 18 months of treatment.

Here alcoholics were put up as guests of the state for 18 months and given the three anti-biotics daily necessary to kill the disease. TB is virtually non-existent here.

Unfortunately such actions violate the civil liberties of the infected. And it represents one of the slippery slope aspects of socializing medicine that gives it a bad rep in the US.

 

Bill

[Pyrotex]

...Mike made mention of how in Australia they rounded up people with TB for 18 months of treatment. Unfortunately such actions violate the civil liberties of the infected. And it represents one of the slippery slope aspects of socializing medicine that gives it a bad rep in the US.

Is this correct?? :)

What civil liberties were violated?

 

I had an operation last summer, and was "rounded" up and put in a "hospital" for 18 days of recovery, even though I truly did not want to be there. Were my civil rights violated? :)

 

When I was a kid, anyone suspected of having smallpox was quarantined, sometimes in their own homes, sometimes in "clinics". Were their civil rights violated? :)

 

My cousin crashed his car when he was 19, and was found to be falling down drunk. He spent the night and most of the next day incarcerated against his will. Were his civil rights violated? ;)

 

There are well-defined circumstances where the state is permitted -- indeed, is OBLIGATED on the behalf of the rest of society -- to incarcerate people against their wills, and this does NOT violate their "civil rights".