Is Health Insurance Socialism?

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by TheBigDog

It is not quite the same thing...

Oh.
Of course!
My bad.

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

[CraigD]

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Michaelangelica

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 b) 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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by freeztar

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.