Is Health Insurance Socialism?

[Michaelangelica]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

I think it would be inappropriate to generalize that all Americans have such a fear...

I don't,but I didn't actually say "all", but if you like let's go with "most"

Why do you see it as an issue specific to Americans?

Compared to other Western Democracies Europe, Canada Australia etc Americans seem terrified of upsetting the workings of the wonderful "market system".
The Social Security (health and welfare) systems are appaling by comparison

[jackson33]

Originally Posted by Michaelangelica

Why are Americans(USA) so frightened by the word "socialism"?

the founding and principles of the US were built on protections from government. it was thought individuals should make up the total of what government would be, with some built in checks and with some very limited purpose. there is zero mention of any socialistic view point written into what are the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution or the first ten amendments. even the original Social Security system, was not intended to be anything it has become. our taxes were to cover the cost of government and the defense of the nation.

government figured out how to involve itself, by refusing funds to a state, for refusing to do anything they requested. this was the beginning of what has yet to end in government controls.

we are frightened, because we knew (as a nation) 240 years ago, socialism could not work, for a free people. since then its been proved a hundred times.
we also know what the only known purpose of this system could be...control of the masses...and this is contrary to what so many before us, gave the ultimate to protect. you can fool yourself or make excuses, but the ultimate goal of any society to take from one group to give to another, will become a little larger Cuba. all people living there aside from government, live on the same income with the same possession's as any other person. the few that have cars are left over wealth from the 50's...

[jackson33]

Originally Posted by Michaelangelica

I don't,but I didn't actually say "all", but if you like let's go with "most"

Compared to other Western Democracies Europe, Canada Australia etc Americans seem terrified of upsetting the workings of the wonderful "market system".
The Social Security (health and welfare) systems are appaling by comparison

no mam, not to us. we and the investors of the world do not agree. the SS and health and welfare systems have already gone to far, but not as far the countries you mentioned. appalling to the dignity of whom. the few that play the system for what they can have no dignity to begin with. the business and companies around the world want to participate, not because its cheap, but profitable. employees will work for wages with out a need for government mandates and have the choice of who or what they work for, even to work for them self.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by jackson33

mandated, required and government control are socialistic symbols.

the US insurance programs are all voluntary, un-mandated and there is no government involved. even the group policies a company or organization provides are optional. if you are on social security, a government program, you are liable for Medicare payment or insurance. even here you can opt out, but lose the SS benefits.

every person in the US, is provided medical service via any emergency room in the country. this has a combination of reasons, but primarily a mandate of government.

Massachusetts has just begun a mandatory universial health insurance program on January 1, 2007. Everyone in the state is required to get health insurance through their employers or if there is not any offered or they are simply without it the state will sign them up. It is a sliding scale program with those who cannot pay being totally subsidized and then others have their premiums based on income levels.

One of the main reasons this was implimented was MA was spending over $1 billion per year on emergency room visits for the uninsured. This program through premiums and cost savings by sending those uninsured to clinics instead of the ER is by law to pay for itself. Of course, we will have to wait to see the results, but 100,000 of the uninsured have signed up.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by jackson33

the founding and principles of the US were built on protections from government. it was thought individuals should make up the total of what government would be, with some built in checks and with some very limited purpose. there is zero mention of any socialistic view point written into what are the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution or the first ten amendments. even the original Social Security system, was not intended to be anything it has become. our taxes were to cover the cost of government and the defense of the nation.

government figured out how to involve itself, by refusing funds to a state, for refusing to do anything they requested. this was the beginning of what has yet to end in government controls.

we are frightened, because we knew (as a nation) 240 years ago, socialism could not work, for a free people. since then its been proved a hundred times.
we also know what the only known purpose of this system could be...control of the masses...and this is contrary to what so many before us, gave the ultimate to protect. you can fool yourself or make excuses, but the ultimate goal of any society to take from one group to give to another, will become a little larger Cuba. all people living there aside from government, live on the same income with the same possession's as any other person. the few that have cars are left over wealth from the 50's...

First, the Declaration of Independence is dead document with zero legal implications for the US. Concerning the US Constitution, the supreme law of the land, one need only to read the Preamble, which has equal weight with any other part of the Constitution, to see the intent of the founders.

"The Constitution of the United States of America"

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The cost of government includes; "promote the general welfare", which means help Americans in need. Since Congress has established through its law making power laws that protect those in need they are the law of the land until struck down by the federal courts or changed by Congress later.

[PsyCho]

Put simply.....

NO!

Though capitalists will appeal to that gooey moral centre and make you believe it really is..... I refer you to the dude in red

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by jackson33

mandated, required and government control are socialistic symbols. ...the idea of a National System is to centralize these controls and eliminate any ones personal preference for quality.

I don't see anyone's pref for quality being eliminated at all. If you got the money, you can still buy whatever service you want.

Are you serious that you believe government agencies sit around big tables and actually brainstorm how they can eliminate 'quality' from the medical system? If you are serious, then you are bonkers. You need to buy some 'quality' mental services before your condition becomes permanent. [/joke]

Bureaucrats may be heartless, in that they cannot be concerned with any one individual's wellfare over another's, but they aren't sociopathic monsters. Typically, they try to balance service provided with cost incurred. This is not freakin' easy. And many folks hired to do this job simply aren't up to it. Pity.

I do not favor a socialist form of government, personally, but I see nothing wrong in the people voting to have a national health program, if that is what they want. If it works, and if it costs less then the stupid morass we're stuck with now, what's your beef???

If it's the word "socialism", then don't use it! Call it "healthism" or "george" for all I care.

[Michaelangelica]

Originally Posted by jackson33

no mam, not to us. we and the investors of the world do not agree. the SS and health and welfare systems have already gone to far, but not as far the countries you mentioned. appalling to the dignity of whom. the few that play the system for what they can have no dignity to begin with. the business and companies around the world want to participate, not because its cheap, but profitable. employees will work for wages with out a need for government mandates and have the choice of who or what they work for, even to work for them self.

This is a very confused post, but let me try to reply to what I think you are saying.

health and welfare systems have already gone to far,

How "gone to far"?
Due to your lousy system and levels of lousy health care and homelessness we now have Drug Resistant TB-born in NY. 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.
I was appaled at the filth I found in the casualty section of a lage Boston Hospital. My wife had to insist that the doctor-who had just been dealing with a homeless person with ahacking cough-to wash her hands before examining her. I know you have some of the best of everything, including health sevices; but you also have some of the worst.

appalling to the dignity of whom.

I gather you mean a decent social Security system is an affront to an individuals dignity. I find the appalling levels of poverty in the richest county in the world a far greater insult to human dignity

the few that play the system

I gather you mean a welfare system is open to abuse by a few. I agree with you there, but I am prepared to wear this for the good of the majority.
Look to to your tax system. When it was first introduced it was meant to tax very wealthy companies; when they all then went off-shore or hired canny accountants the tax base had to be broadened to include the middle class who object to "socialism" as it may cost them money.
In fact it probably saves money I was in Texas 25 years ago and had never in my life seen so much corporate wealth. I was surprised there was no Unemployment benefit. I asked what happened to the unemployed and was told that they move to NY as they had 6months Unemployment benefit ( later reduced).
"What happens after 6 months?" I asked
"Nothing' -Federal food stamps maybe" i was told
"No wonder you have such a big crime, drug and prostitution problem in NY then " I said
My yank friend didn't see the logical connection at all.
People moved to NY because of the welfare when that ran out. . .
If I and my family are homeless and hungry I am going to get money anyway I can-prostitution , illegal activities etc

the business and companies around the world want to participate, not because its cheap, but profitable.

Many Americans (USAans) seem to be under the delusion that everyone wants to live in America (especially your feral, rude customs and border guards). Yes your large market is attractive to many firms and makes things like film-making easier. That's why an Australian took them over (Fox). The Chinese market is now starting to look more attractive to many (watch Fox)
But do not be under the delusion that the USA is the best place to live. Many rich Americans are moving out to places like NZ, Europe and Australia. NZ is especially attractive to those that want a quite life away from a Terrorist Threat and want to live in a real democracy. If you saw Lord of the Rings you know how beautiful the place is. Ask a Canadian or a non-actor-Australian if he wants to move to the USA.
When I visited the USA many years ago I was amazed at people's parochialism.
"You have to see our public white sand beach" I was told in California. i found it almost impossible to explain that All Australian beaches were "public" and there were countless thousand of miles of white sand beaches.

employees will work for wages with out a need for government mandates and have the choice of who or what they work for, even to work for them self.

I think you are confusing socialism with communism
In Oz the minimum hourly wage rate is about $9-10+. Workers are mostly protected with health insurance, free education, supperannuation, subsidised medical and health, workers compensation, a welfare safety-net and strict occupational health and safety laws. They choose to belong, or not, to a Trade Union. (most do)
I note Chevron Mobil has just had its cleaners strike because they are on $5 an hour. This is the one of the richest oil companies in the world (one that our government just gave a gift of 60m to) with profits over 5B.
Corporate greed and amoral behaviour and anti-democratic behaviour is rife in the hierarchical-authoritarian corporate world.
The corporations that run America are not democratic as far as their staff and many of their activities are concerned. How much is Halliburton making from the Iraq war? why have 50,000 Us soldiers died-not for democracy for oil. All the big oil companies will be in for their slice of Iraq. (Rice is an ex-director of Chevron Mobil).
I think we all need to temper the wost abuses of a Free Market System with a sprinkling of socialism. Many people cannot survive in that system. This may be due to disease, diminished capacity, poor education, and many other social and economic factors like looking after kids (sole parents)
Give me liberty! yes, but not death by exposure or TB

[jackson33]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Massachusetts has just begun a mandatory universial health insurance program on January 1, 2007. Everyone in the state is required to get health insurance through their employers or if there is not any offered or they are simply without it the state will sign them up. It is a sliding scale program with those who cannot pay being totally subsidized and then others have their premiums based on income levels.

One of the main reasons this was implimented was MA was spending over $1 billion per year on emergency room visits for the uninsured. This program through premiums and cost savings by sending those uninsured to clinics instead of the ER is by law to pay for itself. Of course, we will have to wait to see the results, but 100,000 of the uninsured have signed up.

i am sure you understand Mass is one state of 50. having said this the problem they had with emergency rooms, in itself is from mandated law.
this is a problem for all states, but not entirely for reasons you may think.

as you said the results are pending. i do know every other state has representatives in Mass, trying to get there business to move to there states.

[jackson33]

M. A.; there simply is no way to stop a sprinkling of socialism. government itself, the people wanting re-election, will see to it their people get what is wanted.

the first social idea to take root, was social security. the intent was to take the peoples money and give it back to them when they retire. this system now has 80 million people getting something every month, the least of them are retired people. dependents, surviving and disability benefits have set the pace. each added much later for any number of reasons. these people in affect never put any money into the system and those that are currently retiring will get all they put in, with in 10 years. Medicare was added many years later and is a disaster in motion...

no doubt you can give examples where society has failed. this is however not the responsibility of government. personal responsibility is what made the US whatever it is. benevolence of the people, toward the other people, another and the idea of community involvement. the fine folks from places that have been for 6 to 15 hundred years have little concept of what it has been like to do all this country has done in 200 years. in actuality it was unique in history and may never happen again in mankind's existance.

one last thing; a capitalistic society, requires socialistic restraints to work.
anything you consider good, has come from this system. the degree of socialism is what makes any form of communistic government. there are few totally commune style countries left, none in what is called the industrialized world. Cuba was a very vibrant capitalistic nation that rivaled many of the worlds powers at one time. their people today have no opportunity to achieve anything, every person in this country can pursue and often achieve.