Is Health Insurance Socialism?

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Michaelangelica

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]

Originally Posted by eric l

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]

Originally Posted by TheBigDog

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]

Originally Posted by eric l

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, socialism is often characterized by state or community ownership of the means of production.

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.

[TheBigDog]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by TheBigDog

...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".

[TheBigDog]

Originally Posted by Pyrotex

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.

Originally Posted by Pyro

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.

Originally Posted by Pyro

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