Is Health Insurance Socialism?

TheFaithfulStone · 01-10-2007

6,000 to 10,000? I don't think those figures are correct.

Your views on the "Katrina Situation" lack coherence. No body expected to be "saved" from the weather, but the didn't expect FEMA to sit on it's ass and do nothing while Wal-Mart (WAL-MART!) sent aid.

TFS

jackson33 · 01-10-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

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

the original SS program is the one i most use to explain a good program turned socialistic. what it was in "35", is night and day to today. by the way it was also voluntary.

i may not be realistic to how my country formed. but its my view and i will give credit to all that gave me the opportunities that i have had and currently have. to be thankful, grateful are not bad things. selfishness and greed are, which implies socialism. the want to have what some other have....even though those things were earned.

jackson33 · 01-10-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFaithfulStone

6,000 to 10,000? I don't think those figures are correct.

Your views on the "Katrina Situation" lack coherence. No body expected to be "saved" from the weather, but the didn't expect FEMA to sit on it's ass and do nothing while Wal-Mart (WAL-MART!) sent aid.

TFS

i am not going here. FEMA, better not act w/o state and local authority. i am a states right person...

most every person rescued had the same response. "didn't think it would be that bad"...

think your right on figure, probably about 3k...

eric l · 01-10-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackson33

selfishness and greed are, which implies socialism. the want to have what some other have....even though those things were earned.

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 ?

InfiniteNow · 01-10-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackson33

there is no national "auto insurance" program...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.

I understand your point (and appreciate your response to my post, btw), but it's a false comparison.

Not everyone has a car, so not everyone needs auto insurance.

A good story reminded me of this on NPR this morning:
NPR : Comparing California, Massachusetts Health Plans

[EDIT] Just to clarify, that money I paid (~$300/month) was ON TOP of my existing insurance, for which I also made contributions with every paycheck. [/QUOTE]

Pyrotex · 01-10-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackson33

...knew Louis Lamoure

Wow. I read many of his novels. My Dad introduced me to his books. Lucky you.

Quote:

...through socialism created a society, which demands total care

You have a damn good point. However, I would not say our system "demands total care". Rather, we have a system that attempts to achieve a reasonable balance between paying for care -- and paying for the consequences of NOT paying for care. The system is not perfect, obviously. Many people still fall through the cracks. Some of them do so because of their own moral failures. I am not advocating trying to help every last individual.

Quote:

...i cannot much as i would like help those i do not know.

Again, I agree you have a valid point. That's what makes this issue so contentious and difficult to discuss. There are indeed arguments on both sides. And I would be a jerk if I just dismissed your POV. One way that I can help people I do not know is through an intermediate agency. However, then only a fraction of my money (90%? ... 10%?) gets to the intended recipients. That's another issue to be dealt with. Or not.

Quote:

...i have been eligible for disability for 13 years. the idea to accept this and not try to do something never occurred to me.....

Good for you. I have been eligible for disability for 55 years, and I have the same identical attitude. I'm 60 and still work full time as an engineer. Hurray for us!

But there are still people out there -- children, especially -- who have no resources of money or of responsible adults to care for them, who could become tax-paying, law-abiding contributors to society... IF...

if...

jackson33 · 01-10-2007

Quote:

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 ?

this is neither. if you have something you want other to have, fine and you should do what you want. donate it directly and 100% will get used by that you chose. give it to charity and 65 % will reach a need. give it to government and 10 to 15 % will. if nothing else, invest in a labor friendly company and reap the profits.

good idea take what you gained and create a business that many can work and become what you have. no problem, but giving to government and expecting this result makes little sense to me.

actually very few go from nothing to something the first try. few ever do just working for some one else, but to achieve with in some one else's dream is not rare. my personal opinion, most have opportunities many times over in their work life. its not my theory, but some think many folks reject success in some way or another. turn down a transfer, promotion, authority or just quit before taking on responsibility. the idea of success or achievement is also subjective. the millions that we call migrant workers, come work and leave with more in one year then they could in their home country in a lifetime. many also stay and consider themselves as successful as you consider yourself.

Pyrotex · 01-10-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackson33

there is no national "auto insurance" program, no national "educational" program or nation "road building" program. ...as for police, fire and emergency departments; they are entirely local and paid for by the property taxes...

Everything you said is correct, as far as I know.

My point was, if you own an automobile in most states, you don't get to "volunteer" to have auto insurance -- it's mandatory. If you have property in most states, paying taxes for public education is mandatory. If you buy gasoline, paying the road tax (which can exceed the actual cost of the gas) is mandatory. In most states, you cannot get a mortgage on a house unless you buy home insurance; it's mandatory.

Now, since these insurances, taxes and fees are indeed mandatory (given the contingent conditions) then it would seem that these could be called "socialism". If not, why not?

I request you not point out that folks can choose to not have houses, cars and other property. For folks with any ambition at all, these things are indeed requirements.

jackson33 · 01-10-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

I understand your point (and appreciate your response to my post, btw), but it's a false comparison.

Not everyone has a car, so not everyone needs auto insurance.

A good story reminded me of this on NPR this morning:
NPR : Comparing California, Massachusetts Health Plans

[EDIT] Just to clarify, that money I paid (~$300/month) was ON TOP of my existing insurance, for which I also made contributions with every paycheck.

[/QUOTE]

and i agree with you. some one mentioned socialized success and this was one of several point. the entire post was directed at reputing what was suggested to be the success of socialism, none of which are or the current duties of US government.

as to state involvement with any program i have no problem. this then becomes the advantage or disadvantage of that state. a few years back Wisconsin went 100% for folks on welfare, with residency limits lifted. they soon became a destination for the real free loaders and have since become the hardest state to receive any assistance. full circle in 40 years. think Connecticut has the best cooperate laws (even better than Nevada) and many major firms have an office and call this their home base. note; none of this has been or is socialism.

you are a good example of taking on responsibility. i find it hard for you to think socialism, will in the end help you or that you could even think it could.
the current unfortunate truth is many get what you pay for, at little or no cost. in the true social scheme, your care would be reduced to that who take for granted what you work so hard for...