Is Health Insurance Socialism?

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by jackson33

if people that are capable to provide and do not, can be held responsible for not doing so. if a person is not capable, yet has a family is liable to some degree to find help. if that person is not capable to find help, then its up to a neighbor to help out. there should be no reason for the Federal Government to become involved.....

I see where you're coming from. It is an extremist view, but not without its logic -- and its appeal.

The trouble is, it is based on three questionable things:
(1) a romanticized view of 18th and 19th Century American society;
(2) an idealized belief that a capitalist democracy <*should*> be a certain way, without demonstrating where those "shoulds" come from;
(3) a false assumption that "your brother's keeper" only applies to one's immediate family and neighbors. In other words, if the pain and suffering isn't on your door step, then you are not obligated to give a damn.

And come on... just between us friends... aren't you really figuring that you'll never have to use all that national insurance stuff and social security stuff, and you'd druther just pocket your share of that money? Could mean a big flat-panel TV next Christmas, right?

[Freddy]

Tonight ABC World News Tonight's story on California's universal health plan also pointed out that 3 states have now passed universal health insurance plans and 15 other states are in the process. Looks like Ted Kennedy, the father of universal health insurance, will get to see his baby sweep the nation!

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

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.

This is untrue. I can tell you from a real life experience that the last time I changed jobs my insurance increased by more than 250% and my coverage was roughly cut in half. I went from a company of 50,000 to a company of 2. My current amounts and services are drastically different than those I had before.

The current problem with the U.S. healthcare system is that it quite opposed to a socialist system. Consider the current situation regarding auto insurance in the U.S. Everyone is required to have it and those that need it have to pay more for it. This effectively reduces the risk of the insurance company and subsequently everyone enjoys a rate lower than it would be if it worked like the current health insurance system.

When we look at health insurance coverage and the fact that having it at all is optional we find that only those that need it have it. Healthy people avoid the expense since they find it usually cheaper to just pay outright for the few services they use. As a result the risk is high to the insurance company since a high percentage of the insured they carry will actually use the insurance frequently. Because the population of insured has a noticeable percentage of people that use as much or more in healthcare than the premiums they pay the insurance company nets a negative return. This is a large reason for the insurance companies trying to negotiate cut rate prices with medical providers.

Compounding the problem is the litigated society. Malpractice insurance rates have skyrocketed. Many doctors services are now limited by their malpractice insurance forcing patients to see a variety of doctors in place if a few that they used to see. For example, more and more general practioners are now referring diabetic patients to endocrinologists because their malpractice insurance no longer covers this area of practice. More and more general doctors can't treat chronic pain anymore, they have to refer you to a pain specialist. The pain specialist in turn will not rewrite a blood pressure prescription because his insurance won't cover him for that. This is just another result of the insurance industry trying to limit it's risk.

Then there's the cost of medicine itself. The fact that you can buy most drugs across the border at lower cost is evidence of the money drug manufacturers need to make to cover their research and manufacturing costs and still turn a profit. Then there's the insurance premiums they have to pay just in case some drug they make interacts with some drug another company makes and all of the sudden they're faced with a $100 million lawsuit. They don't have this risk in countries with caps on awards but they are forced to pass on the cost on insurance in countries like the U.S. wher they do.

IMO, a socialist approach is the answer in the U.S. but I don't favor a system run or managed by the U.S. government, inefficient at everything it does. If everyone were required to have insurance, whether or not they need it at this point in their lives, the net effect would be to lower the risk to the insurance companies and their costs which would result in lower premiums for everyone.

The second biggest help would be caps on awards. It is senseless that someone can buy a cup of hot coffee, spill it in their own lap, sue for millions of dollars and win. These lawsuits do not cost the insurance company anything, they cost the insured through increased premiums. I would actually favor annuitized payouts on the awards that are given. If someone wins a million dollar lawsuit because they poured hgot coffee in their lap I see no reason to give it to them in a lump sum. Let the insurance company by an annuity that pays that million over several years so that the cost they pass on to us, the consumers is reduced. It is us after all that ends up paying all the outrageous awards.

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by C1ay

...The current problem with the U.S. healthcare system is ...
IMO, a socialist approach is the answer in the U.S. but I don't favor a system run or managed by the U.S. government...
The second biggest help would be caps on awards....
It is us after all that ends up paying all the outrageous awards.

Very well said. A concise and clear summary of the issues. Rat own! Rat own!

Nobody minds "socialized" auto insurance! Nobody minds "socialized" fire department services! Nobody minds "socialized" public education! Nobody minds "socialized" taxes to pay for roads and utilitities!

But say "national health care" and ordinary, loving folks who go to church every Sunday, suddenly whip out their machetes and AK-47's and scream, "DIE, YOU GODLESS COMMIE PINKO RATFINK!!!"

[InfiniteNow]

I've been paying $300 a month for 16 months to stay alive. Please, do try to argue with me that I should be responsible for ALL of it. I make a good income, am at a good place, and have good people around me... but I can't live if I don't get refills, and it sure would be nice if I could save for a child's education instead of paying for daily survival. (do the math... that's ~$10/day to stay alive). That's the problem with evolution, eh? Societies evolve, too...

[Dov Henis]

From the preamble to the United States Constitution:

“ We the People of the United States... promote the general Welfare... "


Reflecting on the relationship between "promotion of the general welfare" and the numerous aspects of healthcare of ALL the people, each and everyone, would you consider the constitution socialistic ?

Or what would you rather correct, the preamble or the present healthcare system?


Dov

[jackson33]

Originally Posted by Pyrotex

I see where you're coming from. It is an extremist view, but not without its logic -- and its appeal.

The trouble is, it is based on three questionable things:
(1) a romanticized view of 18th and 19th Century American society;
(2) an idealized belief that a capitalist democracy <*should*> be a certain way, without demonstrating where those "shoulds" come from;
(3) a false assumption that "your brother's keeper" only applies to one's immediate family and neighbors. In other words, if the pain and suffering isn't on your door step, then you are not obligated to give a damn.

And come on... just between us friends... aren't you really figuring that you'll never have to use all that national insurance stuff and social security stuff, and you'd druther just pocket your share of that money? Could mean a big flat-panel TV next Christmas, right?

1- i was a history/government major in school, knew Louis Lamoure, have lived in places where to west was still the west. so maybe i am biased to what was the US. my concept and many of what got us to where we are or that reason not being "socialism", are no doubt different.

2- my opposition to where the line is or should be is based on where the line has come from. in some society this line means all things. you may not understand this but, we have through socialism created a society, which demands total care. you are and many in this debate are showing just such an attitude.

3- no sir, i am my brothers keeper, so to speak, but in my world. i cannot much as i would like help those i do not know. if i see real need, which is a reality in life, i will and do help. i will tell you this is so much part of what i feel i am, never have i used the charity deduction on the tax forms.

AGAIN, need is subjective to an attitude. the needs of one person over another are not measurable by government of concepts of groups. they are very personal and most i have known in need, would have argued the idea they were in need, to begin with...

postscript; i am a lucky person and have few needs. if i didn't like my 15 yo 17 inch TV, i could easily afford the largest flat panel available. additionally i have been eligible for disability for 13 years. the idea to accept this and not try to do something never occurred to me. my dad, his dad and his dad would have done the same w/o choice.

[jackson33]

there is no national "auto insurance" program, no national "educational" program or nation "road building" program. there are some requirements based on many things where the national interest are implied.

US hiways and interstates are maintained by road taxes you and every truck pays for permits and/or fuel. this money is basically returned to the states for partial use to maintain, improve or build the US systems. all city, state, farm or county road are the responsibility of the entity which wants them. likewise states tax fuel and require permits to collect there share of cost.

auto insurance is mandated by all states, to protect those that have insurance. if you cannot afford insurance, you are not allowed to drive a car, legally. this is very much what "health insurance", is except no one can be denied health care.

education is provided by local and state entities. the federal government is getting involved, but for importance, as seen by politicians, to the future of the nation. this is argued daily and many have opted out of public schools, by the way which numbers are increasing. if this is a good example of a socialized programs, i would suggest a review of results are in order.

as for police, fire and emergency departments; they are entirely local and paid for by the property taxes of the residents. (as are schools) these are units involved with "state rights", which are vital to the peoples of any state.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Jackson: I'd say if you're getting your conception of "Frontier America" from Louis L'amour, you've DEFINITELY got a romanticized idea of it.

Originally Posted by jackson

i am a lucky person and have few needs.

Good for you. Some people aren't. Screw 'em? Your personal contribution to charity may not be enough. If people were not required to contribute to Social Security, would they? They're not required to have health insurance, and look where that got us.

Originally Posted by CraigD

It is senseless that someone can buy a cup of hot coffee, spill it in their own lap, sue for millions of dollars and win.

Ahh Liebeck! Everyone gets this wrong. There are a lot of frivolous lawsuits out there, but this ain't one of them.

el facto! (of the established legal variety.)

She's just lucky she didn't DRINK that coffee.

TFS

[jackson33]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

I've been paying $300 a month for 16 months to stay alive. Please, do try to argue with me that I should be responsible for ALL of it. I make a good income, am at a good place, and have good people around me... but I can't live if I don't get refills, and it sure would be nice if I could save for a child's education instead of paying for daily survival. (do the math... that's ~$10/day to stay alive). That's the problem with evolution, eh? Societies evolve, too...

since you have supplied additional information, i feel compelled to respond. its a little more clear where you come from with your opinions. individual cases are sometimes hard to justify and i would not intentionally suggest you case is different. many cancer, heart, kidney, HIV and others victims pay a great deal for services and medications. big pharmacy does have programs for those w/o means and there are programs. you may not qualify for income levels and for some reason did not have insurance.

however we are discussing a national view of many things that are simply being mis represented. its gone to saying things that are not correct. i may show passion and may not seem to be sympathetic to those in some way in need, but its my personal belief these needs can be tended to, with out government involvement. the US was founded, formed and has developed with certain principles one of which was "self responsibility". this to me is a must, for all people. the latest tragic example was Hurricane Katrina and New Orleans. 6 or 10k people died, for the most part relying on local government to save them from things no government could. the individual has to be responsible for some things and this needs to be re installed in the mental process. since you participate in science discussion, you must understand the time will come when people, will have to react w/o any help, much less from some group, that will probably know no more than those effected.