Argue for Socialism

You've asked a lot of questions and have compared apples to oranges in your examples, so I'm just going to respond to your original question of why socialized medicine is better than what we have right now.

1. In this country, the vast majority of people who have health insurance have it provided by their employers. This is a huge cost to those employers. As an example, GM used to be described as a health insurance company that just happens to make cars. They spent more on health costs than they did on parts to manufacture their cars. They went bankrupt and basically out of business. You are now paying to keep that company afloat. Most western, industrialized nations (especially the ones that have large manufacturing bases) have some sort of government health care. They do no burden their businesses with the expensive task of providing health care to their employees and thus making it easier for them to compete in the world market to provide goods and services. They have done this by design to become better competitiors throughout the world and leave the US behind. Having or requireing businesses to provide healthcare is hamstringing their ability to compete and that is bad for business and bad for this country.

2. You already pay for people who have no health insurance. They still get care, only they usually wait until the condition has progressed to a point that treatment requires vastly more and expensive procedures. Then they go to the most expensive and inefficient treatment available to them, the emergency room, and you pay for it with higher hospital costs, medical fees, and insurance premiums. Why not let everyone have access to early, cheap, cost effective treatment and then you will pay less for something you are already paying for.

3. In the US we subsidize the drugs and medicines for the rest of the world that has a government run health system. Other countries negociate drug prices with the drug companies (most of which are US companies) on a scale for their entire country and therefore get the drugs at very little profit to the drug manufacturers. In the US where the average consumer, health insurance or not, has no price negociating power, the drug companie can charge whatever they want and therefore subsidize their meager earnings from countries that do negociate prices.

There's a lot more, but it boils down to the fact that we spend more (in tems of gross costs and per capita costs) than any other country in the world and we are woefully behind in longevity, infant mortality, acess to care, the overall health of the population and any other meaningful measure of health. While other western, industrialized nations have better care and spend far les than we do.


Richard

In my ideal world everyone would contribute what they could and everyone would be fully taken care of. Shelter, food, medicine, the whole bit. But that would also require the end of greed so I know my ideal world wouldn't come any time soon. As for those who don't wish to contribute, they would be kicked out. No free skating in my ideal society. (Which obviously doesn't apply to those who are incapable but rather those lazy leeches that exist in every society and in every class.)

That being said, the approach to government controlled healthcare in the US is IMO the wrong one. They are stuck on the flawed insurance system. For example. Say I have government health insurance care and I need a mouth full of dental work. Most dentists require my percent out of pocket. Say the bill comes to my part being 1,000 dollars. I don't have that kind of money right then and there so even with government insurance I still wouldn't be able to get that work done because I stll wouldn't be able to afford it.

Either they need to go all the way and have all health/dental/vision completely paid for by tax money (with quality controls and private care still available), or they need to give affordable government insurance to just those families who can't get it otherwise as an OPTION. Not a requirement and certainly not with a penalty attached.

A quick response:

sassandgroove said:

I understand that. That's why I want to be able to buy it myself - like car insurance. If you smash up your car and have no insurance, no one has to buy you a new car. But if you get sick and have no insurance, I wind up paying for it through higher fees and premiums because the uninsured get treatment eventually. I assume that's the oranges you are referring too. I don't see it as different. If you introduce competition, consumers can choose their insurance and prices will be lowered since people could shop around. Health Insurance companies get to pick and choose who they want to insure and of course, they only insure those who are not likely to make a claim. Those who are likely to make a claim cannot get insurance. That is not a free market where consumers get to make a choice about the insurance product they buy. With car insurance, the rates, terms, and who gets inurance (everyone gets insurance, it's just the price they pay that is different) is set by the government. With health insurance, there are a great number of people and a great number of maladies that the insurance companies refuse to cover. Again, not a free market where the consumer gets to pick his product. I agree - I don't want employer provided insurance either. But moving the provider from employer to gov't isn't the solution either. I want to be my provider.

I know that too. We already have medicare and medicaid. Fix that. Don't force me on the gov't along with it. The 42 million uninsured that is typically mentioned do not qualify for mdicare or medicaid. They either own too much or are not 65 yoa yet.

I don't know enough about the drugs to respond. THanks for the response.

Click to expand...

sassandgroove said:

Will someone explain it to me? I apparently don't get it and Obama is going to make speeches until I do.

Click to expand...

<style type="text/css"> <!-- @page { margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } --> </style> From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

Government does everything better, faster and cheaper than private industry.

They can specialize in everything.

They also only go after evil robber barons to pay for everything, so no one you know will be taxed.

And because you are a voter, you can trust they are doing everything in your best interest, because how else would they maintain the life of privilege without public support?

First of all, let us admit something very few Americans like to admit. The United States is a socialist country. It has been since the 1930s, and virtually every single American politician in our lifetimes has technically been a socialist. That includes Ronald Reagan, George Bush, etc. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, etc. are all socialist programs. They--and programs like them in industrialized countries all over the world--keep economic downturns from becoming chaos. Prior to the New Deal, whenever a depression or really bad recession hit, riots were normal and widespread violence was (rightfully) expected. Why? Simple. Because people became desperate. Nothing whatsoever is more dangerous than a desperate human being. Nothing. Social programs like Welfare (of which most Americans know next-to-nothing, including how meager it is and how many hoops you have to jump through to even apply for) don't create genuine prosperity or comfort for those receiving it, but do keep them from reaching the point where they become dangerous.

Another way of looking at it is this--despite claims to the contrary, history shows the free market is not an answer to all economic needs. It was and is a powerful tool, a brilliant invention, but not some kind of holy writ which must be kept pure. The vast majority of industrial nations that enjoy long-term success blend capitalism (i.e. private property, the free market, etc.) with socialism (public programs, regulation, etc.). Technically this is called Social Democracy. It works, although of course like anything else it needs supervision and amendment as circumstances warrant.

In other words, socialism works. As does capitalism. But it is the blending of the two that tends to get the best results.

More specifically, regarding health care, at present the medical industry is out of whack just as surely as banking. The current economic crisis (which I've now heard referred to as "The Great Recession") arose largely from the systemic dismantling of governmental safeguards going back to the 1970s. Many of the regulations and fail-safes enacted specifically to prevent this kind of disaster were repealed or put into the hands of those who didn't believe in them (much as the Bush and Reagan administrations were notorious for putting anti-environmentalists in charge of the Department of the Interior). Well, health care doesn't have those safeguards. As a result, the very people most in need of health insurance are the ones who can least afford it. One reason is the whole "pre-existing conditions" rule that so many insurance providers insist upon and frankly abuse. Health insurance has grown increasingly expensive while becoming worth less and less due to market forces (which, again, is a problem rather than something sacred that must remain untouched). Chronic problems get worse and worse, with relief only coming (if at all) when the costs will be near-maximum. The rate of medical-related bankruptcies in the United States is steadily growing, for example, while in nations with some form of government-run health care they are almost non-existent. Due to market forces, people wait to seek medical care, wait until they are forced to act by necessity. Generally, the health problems involved have then progressed to a much more serious level.

No one is seriously suggesting the nationalization of health care (despite a bunch of wildly deceptive rhetoric). What is being pushed (and opposed to the last breath by those whose campaign coffers are filled by drug companies and insurers) is a public option of some kind--some minimal health insurance paid for by the taxpayers in order for all taxpayers to reap the benefits of a healthier society. In other words, the idea is to reduce the expenses involved in medical emergencies (an expense borne by everyone), keep workers employed and employable longer, reduce bankruptcies (which again, we all pay for), and (how is this for ironic?) also give the private health insurance companies some competition to spur them into doing a better job.

I would also argue, as a devout Christian, that our government is a reflection of our selves. The moral response to a health crisis is to help, hence emergency services like those activated after disasters like hurricanes and earthquakes or blizzards. Our country is facing a problem just as severe, but more widespread and in slow-motion rather than in on sudden blow. The right thing, the ethical thing to do is to help. It is also the smart thing to do.

Why is it okay to force your fellow countrymen to be subordinate to large corporations?
Socialized risk is just fine for legal constructs, but not for humans?

The issue is much bigger then just "socialism". The first thing to deal with is the current wrong hierarchy of what is more important, humans or legal constructs?

If it's humans, we gotta trash democracy and move on.

Well Richand And David
I'm sure i read one of your posts during the whole health debate. Very very good comments and very reassuring that some on AW see outside the

Freedom versus Govt Tyranny nonsense

I'm with David. Our best solution IMO is a better blending.

I think "socialism" is one of those words that's too loaded to defend without a percentage of people sticking their fingers in their ears and singing la la la I'm not listening.

I object very strongly to the false dichotomy between 'socialism' and 'capitalism'. The real decision does something belong in the public sphere, meaning it is a necessity for all citizens; or does it belong in the private sphere, meaning it is more effective to deliver it through private enterprise.

Somethings; defense, law enforcement, justice, infrastructure; belong in the public sphere. Very few people would want these things supplied by private enterprise. History has shown that privately run examples of these fail and usually fail pretty badly. The drive to make a profit always overcomes the necessity of providing these things in a fair and efficient manner.

My opinion is that healthcare is a public service just like those other things I mentioned. It is required by every citizen in the nation. It should be provided by the institutions that represent the people, that is the government.

Bringing 'socialism' and 'capitalism' into the debate is changing a practical reality into an ideological struggle.

The public sphere vs. private sphere argument sounds very neat and clean. Let me rephrase it just a tiny bit.

Insert your choice of service in the appropriate places. Healthcare is the one I think that's triggered the discussion.

Is [SERVICE] so critical to my well-being that rather than provide for it myself, I would prefer to hand the decision-making about [SERVICE] over to a huge organization of bureaucrats, who will decide how much [SERVICE] I am allowed to receive and how much I will pay for however much [SERVICE] they decide I need?

Is [SERVICE] so critical to my well-being that I'm willing to take money from my neighbor down the street to pay for it? Is [SERVICE] so critical that I'm willing to have others imprisoned in my name if they refuse to pay? Is [SERVICE] so critical that people who resist payment and incarceration should be shot rather than left alone?

If you can truly answer in the affirmative about any service, then I guess you've got a case for demanding that government take over providing that service.

Personally, I can't name a single thing that I'm willing to demand that other people pay for or go to jail because they refuse to buy it for me.

I'm not that greedy, I guess.

That is a rather sophisticated way of asking "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

Which is why I didn't support the current health care bill. It was going about it all wrong. No one should be punished for not having health insurance. People like me and my husband we can't afford to go to the doctor without insurance but we can't afford to pay for insurance either. So you're going to punish me for not being able to afford either and still not provide the service?!! WTF?

But the problem isn't so much *Should I pay for it myself or I would I prefer to pay for it the back way (taxes) and get the healthcare I need.

It's more *Should I get health care today and not eat/roof over my head/bankrupcy, or should we break it up through taxes so that I can both survive and get the health care I need.*

The second is why it's so crucial. If healthcare was like it used to be, where it was affordable and effective without all these extra bullshit padding up the bill, then it would be more like your option, but it isn't. Most people can't afford health care on their own, which is the real problem that needs to be addressed. If you're going to have government covered healthcare then it shouldn't come in the form of an insurance policy. It's like adding fuel to a crashed vehicle that's already caught fire and wondering why you can't go further down the road.

Don said:

The public sphere vs. private sphere argument sounds very neat and clean. Let me rephrase it just a tiny bit.

Insert your choice of service in the appropriate places. Healthcare is the one I think that's triggered the discussion.

Is [SERVICE] so critical to my well-being that rather than provide for it myself, I would prefer to hand the decision-making about [SERVICE] over to a huge organization of bureaucrats, who will decide how much [SERVICE] I am allowed to receive and how much I will pay for however much [SERVICE] they decide I need?

Is [SERVICE] so critical to my well-being that I'm willing to take money from my neighbor down the street to pay for it? Is [SERVICE] so critical that I'm willing to have others imprisoned in my name if they refuse to pay? Is [SERVICE] so critical that people who resist payment and incarceration should be shot rather than left alone?

If you can truly answer in the affirmative about any service, then I guess you've got a case for demanding that government take over providing that service.

Personally, I can't name a single thing that I'm willing to demand that other people pay for or go to jail because they refuse to buy it for me.

I'm not that greedy, I guess.

Click to expand...

Obama is not a socialist by any stretch of the word. (Nor, for that matter, is he a progressive.) That's the most important thing you should take away from this thread.

Romantic Heretic said:

I object very strongly to the false dichotomy between 'socialism' and 'capitalism'. The real decision does something belong in the public sphere, meaning it is a necessity for all citizens; or does it belong in the private sphere, meaning it is more effective to deliver it through private enterprise.

Click to expand...

And it doesn't have to be a dichotomy. If there is a service people need and are willing to pay for, the government can be in a socialist position to encourage the creation of capitalistic entities to provide those services. With the government acting as aribiter to prevent abuse and punish force or fraud on consumers.

We have HMOs because government allowed their creation, but they have grown via their own greed to no longer serve the public's needs for healthcare (denial of claims, pre-existing conditions, etc). So the government was effective in being capitalistic, but less socialistic because the oversight needed was not created, so now only the corporations benefit from the laws, while the public does not get the service they need and pay for.

DavidZahir said:

That is a rather sophisticated way of asking "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

Click to expand...

I don't see it as sophisticated at all. I see it as very straightforward and a question every person should ask themselves.

Government is force. Government will take people's homes and put them in jail if they can't or won't pay their taxes. If you're seriously OK with somebody losing their home and going to jail in your name, then you can argue for government-sponsored anything. If you're not okay with that, then you should rethink your premises.

tiny terror said:

I think "socialism" is one of those words that's too loaded to defend without a percentage of people sticking their fingers in their ears and singing la la la I'm not listening.

Click to expand...

You're 100% correct there.

If government can do the job better than private industry, we should choose government to do the job. And in some industries, it does do the job better. Right now, it seems to be providing health care for the elderly at significantly lower cost than private industry, and that's something we should be considering as we decide on reforms.

clintl said:

If government can do the job better than private industry, we should choose government to do the job. And in some industries, it does do the job better. Right now, it seems to be providing health care for the elderly at significantly lower cost than private industry, and that's something we should be considering as we decide on reforms.

Click to expand...

But the question is why is government cost lower than private industry?

Volume discounts? Real efficiency? Or the mess of the private industry because of repeated government "reform" attempts?

It's probably a mix of all three, but I'd hesitate to declare government insurance options as "better."

US Steel?

All of the government health insurance have lower administrative costs than the private insurers. I'm guessing some of it has to do with advertising and marketing costs. But I find it really, really hard to understand what benefit the consumer is getting out of the private insurers' advertising and marketing budgets.

But the fact is that Congress earlier in the decade created the Medicare Advantage plans provided by private insurers to create competition for regular Medicare, and these plans have not delivered, and cost more per patient than regular Medicare. So as far as I'm concerned, we have an apples-to-apples comparison here, and the private sector is losing on cost efficiency.