Is Health Insurance Socialism?

[TheBigDog]

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? :)

It is not quite the same thing to keep a person for recovery, and to gather people from the streets and their homes.

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? :)

Was the ACLU the force then that it is now? The government has trouble getting people tested against their will, much less treating them. Times have changed.

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? ;)

Drunk driving is a crime. Having TB or being an alcoholic is not a crime.

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".

Yes, but it is politically impossible to do so. Remember AIDS in the 80's? When the ACLU blocked the government's ability to use quarantines to prevent the spread of deadly disease that was not yet well known or controlled? They could not take people into forced treatment, they could not inform the public of who was infected, they could not inform loved ones of the infected that they might be at risk. Why? Because of the "right to privacy". And why is that so sacrisanct in the US? Because it is the only thing propping up Roe v Wade. (Let the hailstorm begin)

 

Bill

[Pyrotex]

It is not quite the same thing...

Oh. :)

Of course! ;)

My bad. :)

 

You're right. Sorry I said such stupid things. :)

[CraigD]

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.

To my knowledge, no US court has found an instance of the involuntary quarantine of a person suspected of transmitting an easily transmitted, highly lethal disease, un-Constitutional. From a legal perspective, I believe, such people may be committed because they pose a danger to the public, much as may be a violently mentally ill person. Recall that the US Constitution does not unconditionally affirm the right of the People to liberty, etc, only assure that that government cannot abridge such rights without “due process of law”.

 

A famous case of a US citizen involuntarily quarantined for much of her life was “typhoid” Mary Mallon, who is believed to have caused many illnesses and 3 deaths from typhoid fever (to which she was immune) between 1901 and 1915.

 

Less dramatic curtailment of privileges are common in the various state and district public school systems, many of which refuse admission to students who have not received routine vaccination. (see, for example, The 1/23/2007 Washington Post article ”No Class For Those Without Vaccines”). Such requirements have recently received much attention, as several states have implemented regulations requiring that 11-year-old girls who attend public school receive HPV vaccine, even though the HPV virus is transmitted only by sexual contact, is typically lethal only to women (as a cause of cervical cancer), and some worry that such vaccination will encourage under-age sex.

[Michaelangelica]

Controversial Michael Moore Flick 'Sicko' Will Compare U.S. Health Care With Cuba's

 

By Don Hazen, AlterNet. Posted April 23, 2007.

 

Moore's new film, debuting in Cannes this May, tackles the failures of the U.S. health care system and includes a segment where 9/11 rescue workers visit Cuba for treatment they couldn't get in America.

Tools

email EMAIL

print PRINT

149 COMMENTS

 

 

To state that controversy and Michael Moore go hand and hand is to utter the obvious, and Moore's latest film Sicko will clearly be no exception.

 

Sicko, which will be premiering at the Cannes Film Festival in May, is a comic broadside against the state of American health care, including the mental health system. The film targets drug companies and the HMOS in the richest country in the world -- where the most money is spent on health care, but where the U.S. ranks 21st in life expectancy among the 30 most developed nations, obviously in part due to the fact that 47 million people are without health insurance.

 

The timing of Moore's film is propitious. Twenty-two percent of Americans say that health care is the most pressing issue in America.

AlterNet: EnviroHealth: Controversial Michael Moore Flick 'Sicko' Will Compare U.S. Health Care With Cuba's

[CraigD]

…Moore's new film, debuting in Cannes this May, tackles the failures of the U.S. health care system and includes a segment where 9/11 rescue workers visit Cuba for treatment they couldn't get in America. …

Cuba has a long history of welcoming publicity like this. In the (largely pre-www – sorry for the lack of links ) 1980s and 90s, much was made of a small number – tens, or at most, hundreds - of un- and under-insured Americans traveling - in most cases illegally – to Cuba to for HIV/AIDS care – mostly palliative care until they died.

 

Although these cases, and the respiratory illness sufferers featured in Moore’s upcoming films, are clearly being used by individuals and governments for propaganda purposes, which is distasteful, that doesn’t alter the objective facts they reveal, which are encouraging. Despite having far fewer resources (per capita GDP $3900 vs $43444) than the US, in many practical areas, health care in Cuba is equal to or even better than in the US. For example, the HIV infection rate is about .1% in Cuba, vs. about .6% in the US. From my optimistic perspective, this suggest that other poor countries, such as Uganda (HIV rate 4.1%, pcGPD $1,700), can improve their health care to levels comparable to Cuba and the US without necessarily increasing their GPD by factors of 10+. (source: HIV and AIDS in the Caribbean, HIV and AIDS in America, List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

 

If Moore’s new film can promote this optimistic message, I believe it will have performed a valuable public service. IMHO, debates about which countries are better than one another are less important than ones about promoting health care world wide.

[Jway]

Yes, this is an older thread.

 

And yes, I found this at very top of Google search, on terms of "is health insurance socialistic?"

 

From philosophical (rigorous debate) perspective, perhaps it is not. From personal experience, and my worldview, it is a no doubter.

 

I agree with OP and with what was said in first 3 posts. Haven't read the other 100 posts that contributed to this fascinating discussion, but perhaps I will if this topic picks up any steam again. I've thought that US health insurance is at least a little socialistic for several years now. I feel very favorable of capitalism in society, and as someone who has had: group health insurance, no insurance, and individual insurance (currently), I am thinking that the current set up is only barely influenced by capitalism. It is a mixture of both, and IMO it heavily leans toward socialism.

 

Today, while on call with my insurance company (whom I appreciate), I was actually told that issue with rider that I am experiencing would not be occurring if I was on group plan. I felt like I was being "sold" on that, even while the sale can't happen today. I've had group plan and I understood immediately what the agent was telling me, but this is really just a way to bypass the consumer responsibility that comes with healthcare choices. I'm not even giving the reader (you) details on the rider issue as that is tangential to this debate. What I am saying is that without group health insurance policy (which is heavily socialistic), the consumer in the US healthcare market, is vastly subject to being screwed in ways that capitalism alone, cannot fix. IMO, capitalism alone, doesn't even address this. I wish it did. But, in my experience, it does not.

 

I've even had my insurance agent (person that sold me the policy, and another aspect of puzzle that I do appreciate) tell me that if he were US president, he would do away with health insurance, as it is killing "fair market" for the individual consumer. If you are (essentially) "unionized" under group health care, then the market is very "fair." But if you are not part of that union, and are a) in individual policy or :hihi: have no policy / uninsured, you are playing by rules where capitalism is barely in the picture.

 

I could bring up at least one other example to further this point, one from my own experience, but I'll leave it at here for now. If any further discussion ensues, I'll be listening and may further participate. If not, thanks for opportunity to post / share all this, and thanks for reading!

 

-Jway

[lemit]

You're right. It doesn't seem that either capitalism or socialism can exist by itself. That seems almost biological, but then this is a science site.

 

It's simply impossible given our history and traditions to imagine socialism here. But capitalism has only worked in a system of tight regulation. The stock market, after nearly eighty years of neglect, has reminded us recently why it wasn't neglected eighty years ago by completely repeating what it did then. Free enterprise, if left free, seems to be full of lemmings hoping everybody else will jump but they themselves will be able to stop.

 

Our healthcare system already has NIH, NLM, CDC, VA, Medicare and Medicaid, and Military Hospitals. (I'm forgetting a bunch of things--there are several unused letters of the alphabet--anybody else?) We can have a government-run alternative to private health systems very easily; we already have one. So the complaints by the private companies that they can't survive alongside a government-run system don't make sense; they're doing it already.

 

I hope people can realize that extending a government-run plan to the few categories of people who aren't already covered by some kind of plan will not be the end of the world. Not much will change.

 

--lemit

[lawcat]

Nationalized system is the only system that makes any sense. It makes sense financially, and it makes sense healthwise.

The u.s. system is inefficient. You pay good private money, yet nothing is done timely. Auditing of what is covered uner the contract and what you need is cumbersome and hardly patient oriented. If you call your doctor, they will schedule an appointment 2-3 weeks from now. If it is an emergency you have to wait 2 days, or they tell you to go to an emergency room. Then, you need to know which emergency room is the one that is in your plan. You need to know what is covered and what is not. If you do not know, the doctor has to be trained in plans and coverages; and know what he can and can not do based on the plan. Doctors are businessmen and not doctors. Money galores in inefficiency, and in the end nothign is done timely nor efficiently.

 

Our system is a disaster. It can not stand.

 

We need nationalized healthcare where everything is free everywhere for everyone. No questions asked. You do not have to worry about debt, where to go, or what is covered. Everything is free for everyone at all locations. The cost are completely externilized. It is the only and most efficient way.

 

It is not socialism. it is a necessity and the only financially prudent way of completing healthcare task.

[freeztar]

Nationalized system is the only system that makes any sense. It makes sense financially, and it makes sense healthwise.

The u.s. system is inefficient. You pay good private money, yet nothing is done timely. Auditing of what is covered uner the contract and what you need is cumbersome and hardly patient oriented. If you call your doctor, they will schedule an appointment 2-3 weeks from now. If it is an emergency you have to wait 2 days, or they tell you to go to an emergency room. Then, you need to know which emergency room is the one that is in your plan. You need to know what is covered and what is not. If you do not know, the doctor has to be trained in plans and coverages; and know what he can and can not do based on the plan. Doctors are businessmen and not doctors. Money galores in inefficiency, and in the end nothign is done timely nor efficiently.

 

Our system is a disaster. It can not stand.

 

We need nationalized healthcare where everything is free everywhere for everyone. No questions asked. You do not have to worry about debt, where to go, or what is covered. Everything is free for everyone at all locations. The cost are completely externilized. It is the only and most efficient way.

 

It is not socialism. it is a necessity and the only financially prudent way of completing healthcare task.

 

I agree lawcat, but my only concern is what kind of financial burden this will create. How are we going to pay for this?

 

Obama has recently stated that he would like to tax the wealthy to pay for this. What are the repercussions of this, especially considering our lingering recession?

[lawcat]

I agree lawcat, but my only concern is what kind of financial burden this will create. How are we going to pay for this?

 

Obama has recently stated that he would like to tax the wealthy to pay for this. What are the repercussions of this, especially considering our lingering recession?

 

Everyone has that concern. But I do not. It will get paid from the taxes. However, the system must be reformed.

First, insurance companies must be put out of business. They serve no purpose other than profit making. The intermediary who limits our benefits and tries to get out of coverage whenever possible, and tells the doctor what can be prescribed, must be put of his misery for our own sake. Insurance companies serve no purpose, other than their own.

Second, the approach and training to medicine must be changed, including pharmaceuticals. If we need 8 doctors, and the private hospital hires 4 to do the full job, they are doing us a diservice. Hire all 8 doctors for less. make those 8 doctors worry about health and not plans and coverages. if we need school reforms so be it. canada, Britain, France, Spain have great doctors aand are doing better and much more efficiently then we do. We spend considerably more than Japan, France, britain, Spain, Canada, and we are ranked much lower then them.

Third, we have to build hospitals and clinics.

If private hospitals and insurance companies can reap profits and spend the most money in the world on healthcare of any industrialized nations, and yet provide less, then there is money and it can be done. The government can do it. there are great models of systems that work and those can be modeled here.

[InfiniteNow]

That concern of "financial burden" also omits the fact that we will bankrupt ourselves within just a small handful of decades if we don't change anything. In sum, we'll pay less by making the change than we would if we left things alone.

 

 

[freeztar]

Everyone has that concern. But I do not. It will get paid from the taxes. However, the system must be reformed.

First, insurance companies must be put out of business. They serve no purpose other than profit making. The intermediary who limits our benefits and tries to get out of coverage whenever possible, and tells the doctor what can be prescribed, must be put of his misery for our own sake. Insurance companies serve no purpose, other than their own.

Second, the approach and training to medicine must be changed, including pharmaceuticals. If we need 8 doctors, and the private hospital hires 4 to do the full job, they are doing us a diservice. Hire all 8 doctors for less. make those 8 doctors worry about health and not plans and coverages. if we need school reforms so be it. canada, Britain, France, Spain have great doctors aand are doing better and much more efficiently then we do. We spend considerably more than Japan, France, britain, Spain, Canada, and we are ranked much lower then them.

Third, we have to build hospitals and clinics.

If private hospitals and insurance companies can reap profits and spend the most money in the world on healthcare of any industrialized nations, and yet provide less, then there is money and it can be done. The government can do it. there are great models of systems that work and those can be modeled here.

 

Thanks lawcat. I'm left wondering though...where are the facts? Do you have sources for the USA being ranked lower than the countries you mention? On what basis?

 

An argument I've often heard is that people come from all over the world to seek professionals in the USA. Sure, it might be specialties, but I think that is what our current system does best. We create specialized surgeons that are not produced overseas, for whatever reason. I like to think it is our free market system that produces this, but I could be wrong.

 

So, if we agree there, then we surely agree with the same care being delivered to every citizen. Unfortunately, it's not worth the time of a grad med student who wishes to go to school (and into debt even further in most cases) to obtain specialization. Where is the incentive? If they get paid the same as their 8 year surgeons that have no depth to the level of specialization, why would anyone do that other than selfless dedication to their career goals?

 

Now, if the gov't is willing to float the bill to pay a higher grade salary to these people, then that might work. But again, we're back to the payment. It seems you are happy to be taxed for this (and I appreciate this because I'd be the same way if I was in that bracket ), nonetheless, a lot of people in that bracket disapprove. From talking to folks, it's not always about that, but it's certainly a negative mark in their views. Do you think it is only selfish greed that is holding us back? If not, what *is* holding this back?

[freeztar]

That concern of "financial burden" also omits the fact that we will bankrupt ourselves within just a small handful of decades if we don't change anything. In sum, we'll pay less by making the change than we would if we left things alone.

 

 

 

Excellent graph, IN!

 

Rather than matching the slope of tax revenue with the spending, why not weed out the "entitlement" spendings? I'm all for healthcare reform, but I think it needs to be a long range plan. When we increase gov't spending in one regard, it is prudent to cut spending in another regard. Where should we make the cuts? How will "Universal Healthcare" change the outcome of this graph?

 

These are not challenges. I'm sincerely interested in learning how and why the current plan will, or will not, work.

[lawcat]

I can not agree. This has nothing to do with tax brackets. National healthcare has to do with increasing efficiency, cutting the fat from cost of healthcare, and making healthcare available to everyone everywhere for everything they need. AS of 2003:

 

United Kingdom: (1) population 62 million, (2) cost $2300 per capita = public.

United States: (1) population 300 million, (3) cost $5700 per capita = private.

http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm010307oth.cfm

 

Yet, "The U.S ranking was 24th, worse than similar industrial countries which have very high public funding of health such as Canada (ranked 5th), the UK (12th), Sweden (4th), France (3rd) and Japan (1st). But the U.S ranking was better than some other European countries such as Ireland, Denmark and Portugal which came 27th, 28th and 29th respectively. "

Socialized medicine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Morover, all those countries that ranked higher and around us have public healhtcare, spend less, and have excellent doctors; billions of people are treated. Our system simply can not stand. It is inefficent, wasteful, and fails to achieve its goals.

Aetna, Blue Cross, etc. must go out of business. We do not need them. It's wasted money. the system is cumbersome and inefficient.

We need different kinds of doctors; not the CEO looking type or a businessman, but a health professional.

I do not care how they get educated, but they must be paid in accordance with the nationalized system Sweden, UK, Australia, Canada all have doctors, and they are no worse then ours. But even if the whole world had worse doctors, the price aint worth it--they are wasteful, the system is based on plans and coverages and limitations, and it costs more. It is wholly unnecessary. It is a bigger bureaucracy than anything in our government.

 

You can tell me that increased debt is good for economy, and we depend on financial institutions such as insurance field. But this can not stand. Evidence against it is all over.

It is precisely these costs and inefficiencies that are driving us into the ground. We drowning in high costs and debt. We must change the healthcare system as a whole. There is no other way. It's the only way that makes any financial sense.

[Cedars]

The American Healthcare system is based on capitalism. But if one looks at how insurance works, it uses a socialist approach. In other words, everyone is required to pool their money (roughly similar amounts for similar services) irregardless of one's use of the health care system. In a free capitialist system, one should only pay for what they consume. Those who who consume more resources should pay more. But in the insurance commune the healthy are required to suppliment the unhealthy.

It is purely capitalist. It is no different from the financial brokers on wall street. Insurance is the middleman but gouging both ends. Gouging the consumer and fighting the providers to pocket more and more of the pool money.

 

It was more socialist when major health insurers were non-profits. Various lobbies (HMOs) got laws changed which basically put non-profit insurance providers out of business by requiring capital to cover expenses, prior to these law changes, the non-profits paid claims via the income received in the weekly/monthly/bi-monthly etc premium payments and kept what they needed to cover admin costs. This is why way back in the good old days you didnt have the insurance companies fighting with doctors/pre-approval of services. The laws required the non-profits to use their income to provide the services, lower the premiums or lose their non-profit status. When they became required to be 'for profit' is when costs skyrocketed. Add into that various state laws mandating over-charging (higher service prices on the insured) to cover the costs of the un-insured. This is why you can negociate (for the most part) much lower offices visits if you pay in cash because you have no insurance. For regular visits anyways. I dont know if that would work on surgery, cancer, etc.

[InfiniteNow]

Thanks lawcat. I'm left wondering though...where are the facts? Do you have sources for the USA being ranked lower than the countries you mention? On what basis?

We spend a metric assload more money per capita than practically all other developed nations and get about 5 times less in terms of care and performance than other developed nations when it comes to healthcare.

 

The numbers showing our pathetic ranking come from the WHO.

 

Full Report: http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/whr00_en.pdf

 

 

Summary:

 

WHO | World Health Organization Assesses the World's Health Systems

The U.S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance, the report finds.

 

<...>

 

One key recommendation from the report is for countries to extend health insurance to as large a percentage of the population as possible. WHO says that it is better to make "pre-payments" on health care as much as possible, whether in the form of insurance, taxes or social security.

 

While private health expenses in industrial countries now average only some 25 percent because of universal health coverage (except in the United States, where it is 56%)

 

<...>

 

WHO's assessment system was based on five indicators: overall level of population health; health inequalities (or disparities) within the population; overall level of health system responsiveness (a combination of patient satisfaction and how well the system acts); distribution of responsiveness within the population (how well people of varying economic status find that they are served by the health system); and the distribution of the health system's financial burden within the population (who pays the costs).

 

Please note that, due to the complexity of performing such clear and articulate measures, the report above is only as recent as 2000. However, all major indicators suggest that costs have risen dramatically since that time, and performance has continually become worse in terms of US healthcare output.

 

 

As for the comments re: capitalism:

 

The simple fact is that capitalism can't quite work in healthcare insurance. The company is in place to make money. That's their "bottom line." They maximize profit for shareholders, and they do this by minimizing expenditures and maximizing income. Every single claim/payment is an expenditure, and hence bad for business.

 

This is basic economics. A purely for profit health insurer does not have the health or well being of it's customers as a primary concern. Their primary concern is making the most money possible.

 

Again... to summarize, the best business outcome for a capitalistic insurer is to maximise their premiums (which translates as income) while minimizing their payouts (which translates as expenditure... and ultimately less care for patients who need it). If you carry this to its logical conclusion, the perfect outcome for the insurer would be to collect premiums and never payout a cent... and that's the general direction they've been taking us these last several decades.

 

While never paying out a cent is rather impossible to achieve, they instead continue to minimize payouts and continue increasing premiums... said another way... bankrupting and killing american citizens.

 

 

Nobel prize winning econimist Paul Kurgman had a great article explaining these exact points just last week, and you can read that here:

Why markets can’t cure healthcare - Paul Krugman Blog - NYTimes.com

[lawcat]

The simple fact is that capitalism can't quite work in healthcare insurance.

 

No truer words have been stated. The slogan "if you have money you will get great care, and if you don't too bad" does not work in healthcare. We are paying increasingly more and more to get less and less. And in the end, 50 million are not covered, and in general everything is not covered. There are risk assessments, there is audioting, there are administrative overheads, tehre is all the crap we do not need. It's simply time to destroy the healthcare system, and the health insurance companies.