Is Health Insurance Socialism?

[hallenrm]

Since the title of the thread doesn't seem to suggest that it is limited to Health Insurance in USA only, let me briefly tell my thoughts about it in India. Helth Insurance here seems to be a syndication of the Insurance companies and the private Health Care sector, at the cost of the health of the client.

People take Health insurance policy because of their fear, that if they fall sick and have not enough financial resources no one will take care of them. After taking a policy they become somewhat complacent about their personal health care.
Institutions like private hospitals, who are authorized to deliver health care, exploit the client often by prolonging the stay, or recommending unneccessary clinical tests, that give them additional revenue.

As the projected costs of the health care increases, because of the above two factors, the premiums are hiked.

I fail to see any traces of socialism, read a system for common good, in this system

[HydrogenBond]

Health insurance, as an industry, works using capitalist's principles. But on the other hand, the consumer is forced into a socialist structure to make the capitalism work for the industry. Those who do not consume medical resources do not get a rebate at the end of the year.

For example, if I was heating my home with oil, I could set up a payment plan to spread out the payments over the year. If at the end of the year, I payed more than I consumed, I would get a rebate. The excess would not be way taken from me and given to someone else who used more than their payments or to other who couldn't afford to pay. I would be given that choice. This is capitalism for both industry and consumer. Health insurance is capitialism for the industry but forced socialism for the consumer, with many forced to pay for stuff they don't use.

The way the industry pulls the wool over our eyes is connected to gambling. They are sort of like the bookie. They give one a point spread of health and then we gamble. The extra money one doesn't get back, is the payment to the bookie. Or the right to gamble requires one pay the bookie. In the case of health insurance, winning the bet allows one to use medical resources (betting on sickness). While losing the bet means one doesn't use the health system but has to pay the bookie. As far as I know gambling is illegal in most states.

Insurance is the most dishonest form of gambling because it forces a socialists pooling system to cover it butt. In other words, if a bookie from Vegas set the odds for the superbowl and the betters clean house, the bookie is not allowed to raise his book fee or to steal from other gamblers to pay off the winners. He would get bumped off. The insurance companies welch on bets all the time by dipping into the hidden socialist pool to cover their gambling debts.

[Michaelangelica]

Insurance is gambling when only the insurer knows the winning odds.

You are 'drawing a long bow' equating Gambling with Socialism.
Insurance would not be needed in 'a cradle to grave' socialist system

In a true, universal, socialist, Heath Care System, free health care would be provided by the State for all its citizens. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

...Those who do not consume medical resources do not get a rebate at the end of the year.

For example, if I was heating my home with oil, I could set up a payment plan to spread out the payments over the year. If at the end of the year, I payed more than I consumed, I would get a rebate.

Would love to hear how you'd make this work for medical costs: You get a heart attack hopefully only once in your life. In fact, not everyone does. These things cost $50k or $100k. How's that going to be covered if you get a "rebate" *every year* when your premiums for that year are only a few thousand dollars?

Insurance has nothing to do with "socialism": its about spreading risk.

Of course some people have a paranoid fear of socialism and see socialists under every rock.

The notion that insurance is "gambling" is similarly strained: your payout is limited to your actual loss, so the only way you come out "ahead" is if you die before your first premium payment. Without any way to have a net gain in your financial position, its even less renumerative than the stock market, which is legal in all states.

Prohibition against gambling and other vices of course is something that *liberals* engage in to protect people from themselves.

Move over Hillary, a few people need some space on your left.

Laissez Faire Liberal,
Buffy

[jackson33]

Originally Posted by Pyrotex

Apparently a LOT of you didn't vote in the election of 2006.

Lemme tell you, I fully agree with your ideals. I wish everybody was a self-starter, and willing to be responsible for their own lives, as you and I are. I wish everybody looked up to Franklin, Washington and Jefferson (and the Adams boys) as role models to follow. I wish Lewis and Clark were every child's heroes. I wish everybody took pride in the labor of their own hands and minds--and derived pleasure from the doing of it. Damn straight! And amen!

But would that mean we could throw away Social Security and all the various insurances (both voluntary and mandatory) that provide "safety nets"?

No. Social and financial disasters happen. Period. Wars happen. Hurricanes and tornadoes and floods happen. And they sweep up the industrious as well as the lazy. The Great Depression didn't happen just to the wastrels and stupid. The deterioration of our central cities didn't affect just the slackers and the careless.

The stories of our founding fathers (and mothers) and the great migration out West are inspiring as hell. But how many of those self-reliant, strong, independent people died from causes beyond their control? How many folks just like you died of starvation in the Great Depression? Or in any of our Great Disasters, like the San Francisco earthquake of 1907?

I applaud self-reliance. But I don't see any nobility or righteousness in having a social economic system that lets people die for no good reason.

and 6000 die every day in the US, today. many for reasons that should not be. auto accidents, murder, over medication, on and on...this is life and like or not it will go on.

those self-reliant people are still there in multitudes. they move to Florida in groves and set up house knowing a hurricane may wipe them out this summer or to California, where predictions of Earth Quakes are staggering. many in NYC could die tomorrow for any number of reasons and knowing the rat population there, this may be soon. people move or go to places that are not all that safe all the time and die. those folks that migrated west, populated SF or lived through the depression all had an advantage over us. they knew their fate was in their hands and no entity was going to appear and help.

all these folks can insure some of there actions and have the choice. if they choose no and would prefer to lean on you, me or FEMA, then the problem begins. there is no nobility or righteousness in teaching responsibility and the point of my argument. people die from unrealistic expectations all the time, that would live if they acted with some sense of personal responsibility. speeding up for a red light to passing on an upgrade or going ice fishing in the spring.

yes, there will be problems in the future, but to teach or think government will some how be available to save the country is not realistic. the more that depend on it now the more that will perish when this time comes. its got nothing to do right, wrong, liberal, conservative or generous. simply put its called getting some sense of personal responsibility back into the equation...

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by jackson33

and 6000 die every day in the US, today. many for reasons that should not be....all these folks can insure some of there actions and have the choice. if they choose no and would prefer to lean on you, me or FEMA, then the problem begins. there is no nobility or righteousness in teaching responsibility and the point of my argument. people die from unrealistic expectations all the time, that would live if they acted with some sense of personal responsibility. ...

Well, welcome to the real world.

Living responsibly will increase your chances of a long, healthy life, with a nice retirement nestegg. But it carries no guarantee. Even the most responsible people sometimes find themselves with medical conditions that they could not prepare for. And that's the whole point.

I am not advocating that government will take care of everybody. Far from it. I'm just saying that a good insurance policy is ... well ... "insurance". And any insurance policy is cheaper if everybody buys in. If only the old and sick were getting insurance, it would be too expensive for anybody. Might as well have no insurance at all.

National health insurance makes good business sense. Dollars and sense. It is no more "socialism" than having police departments.

[jackson33]

SS/Medicare, is a socialistic mode of insurance and very much in play today and will be even if one person is paying for two benefits. all any person needs is to have worked 10 years and that person is vested.

i have to agree it would seem an old person, incapable of working and going through a catastrophic physical event and having worked 10, preferable 20 or 30 years should be entitled. at least some effort has been placed to wards this end. unfortunately this well intended program already includes any working person who is out of work or disabled from a hang nail. these programs are in trouble today but i would bet my share, in the next ten years more people will qualify for less reason and only those that were the intended people will be left out. this by age requirement and the old folks will have to work longer to pay for the disabled free loader.

much of what i said was to show there is NO GUARANTEE. any person knows some one who fell through the cracks or had more than their share of bad luck or been mis-treated by government or society. many states are releasing 60-70-80 year olds from prisons (crowding problems) w/o any hope of survival. people suffer mental problems, have done nothing wrong but have no idea how to get help. the list is long to unfair and it goes to those that were rich and successfully. any guarantee comes from efforts, practices and pure luck.

i have never said insurance per say, is socialism. the mandating or giving of this is and the trend is giving- paid for, by those and that which supports government.

[Freddy]

I was listening to the local talk radio show today and the state director of MA new universal health plan was being interviewed. This week people began to sign up for it. He said that so far they have exceeded expectations for both the subsidized plan and the new private pay plans. By law all residents must have health insurance by July 2007. See link:

NHP Commonwealth Care Plan

[Michaelangelica]

Originally Posted by Freddy

By law all residents must have health insurance by July 2007.

By law don't you pay taxes?
Why can't insurance be taken from this?

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by jackson33

SS/Medicare, is a socialistic mode of insurance and very much in play today...unfortunately this well intended program already includes any working person who is out of work or disabled from a hang nail.....

Jack33,
well, all in all, you have done a good job of representing your case. I can truly see your side of this issue, and for that I thank you. After giving this due consideration, I still feel that some form of across-the-board health insurance would be acceptable, indeed advisable, as long as the cost to the nation was less than the benefits accruing from a healthier population.

One thing you might want to consider. As good as you did in presenting your case, you could make it better by avoiding such exaggerations as the one I quoted above. In fact, the current Medicaid system does not recognize "hang nails" as a valid reason for "full disability". The current system is bad enough that you could easily find factual examples that might make your case even better. Stooping to exaggerations has a tendency to make your opponent suspect that you lack real evidence.

Good luck.