View Full Version : socialism
I don't know where I should post my thoughts about socialism. Moderators, please feel free to move it.
My concern is about American health care. I feel you could have much better health coverage than you do. For instance:
You share the costs of police forces, fire, mail, internet, schools, shops, etc., by sharing costs together. You are doing that every day, you just don't call it socialism. Yet you don't understand you are using socialism yourselves.
Get over it! Forget your fears about socialism and kick the insurance companies away as far as health care is concerned...actually they are socialists too. Socialism means "living in communities...interdependent, cooperative, agreement for social benefits...state assistance for those lacking adequate money or welfare...I'm cherrypicking here from The pocket edition Oxford Dictionary [1982].
What's scary about that?
What an interesting question!
I guess to answer it, we'd have to define socialism. We're all social people, a family unit engages in socialism on a micro level and many of us join groups or make associations with others which are again socialist in nature. Other than not being able to choose which family you're born into, these are voluntary interactions and as such, reflect our free will and choice.
The trouble with governmental socialism is the lack of free will and choice. The United States was founded on the notion that individuals are free to choose for themselves and that government was their servant rather than their master. Of course, we've made concessions along the way in our attempts to do good to our fellow man, but with each concession we've morphed a little more into the type of of top down governmental structure that we rebelled against at our founding.
Many people believe that further concessions along those lines are not in our best long-term interests and that the long term moral hazard dwarfs our short term benefit.
herbgeek
11-23-11, 10:52am
For me the difference is between voluntary and compulsory. I love to pool with other shoppers to share costs on things /I/ want. I don't want someone demanding MY money to lower someone else's cost for something I have no interest in.
Here in Massachusetts, we have the "model" that Obamacare was loosely based on. My costs have /skyrocketed/ since mandatory insurance was instituted because I am forced to buy more and more coverage for things I don't want or need in order to subsidize other people. I cannot just buy catastrophic coverage and have a high deductible that I pay out of pocket for. I have to buy a set plan that I have no say over, no choice.
One example: I exercise every day even though I don't really enjoy it, eat well, manage my stress and the like in order to not need health care. I do not take any prescription medicines, yet prescription plans were added as a mandatory requirement that I have to pay for. There are no incentives for healthy living in our medical plans (I do it anyways for other reasons).
I do not believe it is generally moral to initiate force against another.
So I'm just fine with voluntary associations and actions for mutual benefit engaged in by freely consenting parties in good faith. I'm not-so-fine with the killing fields.
iris lily
11-23-11, 11:04am
...
You share the costs of police forces, fire, mail, internet, schools, shops, etc., by sharing costs together. You are doing that every day, you just don't call it socialism. Yet you don't understand you are using socialism yourselves.
I assure you that I am well aware that there are many socialistic institutions in our country. I'm tied in more closely than you might think! And --get this--I know that I would be satisfied with the health care provided to Canadians! How about that!
But in this country, where everything must be big and The Best and everyone MUST be equal, your health system wouldn't work here. People here are not contect with "pretty good", everything must be The Best and Congress will always respond to victim groups who lobby for their particualr group or disease to be uber funded. Even and especially Compassionate Conservatives who have no balls will vote "ay" toward any re-up of spending to support whatever health need is trotted out in front of them.
To me the bottom line is this: in our country that is already spending way more than its annual income, we cannot add more expenditure. Scary? That's the word--I personally am wired to hate and fear debt. My own household is run to avoid debt. My stomach turns when I think about debt. I want my country run the same way.
ApatheticNoMore
11-23-11, 2:27pm
This should be in public policy. Granted every conversation there degenerates into I don't know what (including name calling, insult throwing and) but ....
Costs for healthcare have been SOARING everywhere in the last 10 years, so I don't know how much worse MA is than places where they have no such plans (of course you don't notice so much if you are under an employer provided plan but yea healthcare costs are soaring).
Whether you favor redistribution depends on how just you think the current distribution is. However just it may or may not have been before when I will concede the market was at least semi-free, I think it just got a whole lot unjuster given the wholesale bailout of everything (which in fact was MASSIVE redistribution but will never be recognized as such!). Both the boom and the bust and the bailouts fundamentally realigned wealth.
As for not being able to afford more deficit spending, in most cases it is true. However I think we're screwed on healthcare one way or other anyway. So we already have socialism for old people in medicine as is, it is called medicare. And this is going bankrupt without a doubt. I think social security could be saved (remove income caps on SS taxes etc.), but medicare on the other hand, my gosh, given the current system it is a disaster! And it's possible socialized medicine is the only thing that could save it, as it would bring the lower cost people (younger people) into the income pool. So I think it may be an attempt to save medicare. Of course we didn't get socialized medicine, we got some horribly complex plan that very few understand, most of which hasn't taken effect yet, and that is unlikely to control costs. The only people I think it benefits are those with preexisting conditions.
With soaring prices in general, one is free to not purchase the item at all or find lower cost alternatives. With MA health care, I get neither option. I must purchase insurance, and I must purchase all the options the government has deemed that I "need". There is nothing I can do to reduce my cost. That's what is frustrating. I have many more options on my car insurance!
I have been unemployed for 2+ years, although my husband had intermittently found work- the mandatory insurance is our single largest expense and at times quite the hardship. We briefly slipped below the eligibility line for subsidized care for a while- our premium then was about 15% of our usual premium. That's one huge level of subsidization. There is no gradual increase in premium, you pay one low rate under the limit (x), and this very high rate (6.5x) once you make one dollar more.
loosechickens
11-23-11, 9:57pm
It doesn't make sense, Lizii, which is why no other civilized, Western democracy has such a mess of a system, where we pay twice or more what any other of those countries pay for health care, get far less for our dollars, leave perhaps fifty million or more of our citizens without access, and fall further and further behind, while continuing to enrich our health "care" industry with fat profits.
The thing is, the people in this country who DO have good access to health insurance, either through an employer, or their own wealth and ability to pay the bills, don't worry about it, and often are determined not to have to contribute to access for any others.
Costs are spiraling out of control, which will continue until we manage to get some kind of system together to deal with it. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that to happen.
As you can see from some of the above comments.....this thinking is what is preventing the U.S. from having anything like what Canada has, or any of the European nations, some of which have single payer government health care and some that have hybrid systems, or systems based on the private sector, regulated. And none of which have citizens left without care at all, let alone fifty million people, and 3/4 of a million families going bankrupt from medical bills EVERY year.
But.....Alan didn't have to struggle along with a hearth condition and hear that his case wasn't life threatening enough to qualify for emergency care, or have bouts of heart failure, organ damage and other complications because he didn't have money to see a doctor or to pay for an operation. Bae could probably buy the whole hospital himself.......heck, I have Medicare and an excellent supplemental policy....I'm home free, too. (LOVE that socialized Medicare, I do). Although even that isn't "free", as I pay about $100 for the basic Medicare, per month, and $227 for my supplemental policy. At least I'm covered, and well.
It really comes down to whether people have an attitude of "I've got mine, and I'm not going to carry anybody else", or "I've got mine, but I care about whether others have theirs, too", and in the meantime, our costs go up, our health level as a country goes down, many millions have no access, but we have been "saved" from socialism. Don't even LOOK for it to make sense, because it doesn't. JMHO
It really comes down to whether people have an attitude of "I've got mine, and I'm not going to carry anybody else", or "I've got mine, but I care about whether others have theirs, too",...
People can reasonably object to how a health care system is proposed to be implemented without being in the "I've got mine" camp. Casting the question as either-A-or-B is sloppy thinking at best.
I for instance think we have an affirmative moral duty to render aid to others, and act so in my daily life. I do not however believe I should be *forced* by someone else to take action. No matter how progressive their thinking is.
....It really comes down to whether people have an attitude of "I've got mine, and I'm not going to carry anybody else", or "I've got mine, but I care about whether others have theirs, too", and in the meantime, our costs go up, our health level as a country goes down, many millions have no access, but we have been "saved" from socialism. Don't even LOOK for it to make sense, because it doesn't. JMHO
Sorry loosechickens, it's much more complicated than that and I think other concerns were laid out pretty well throughout this thread. Perhaps you should re-read?
freein05
11-23-11, 11:31pm
Something needs to be done about health care in the US. The costs are going up at 2 to 3 times the overall inflation rate. That can not continue. The costs of health is driving both Private and public employers into bankruptcy. With costs going up like they are no one will be able to afford it. The free market system is not working in the health care area. Too few doctors, hospitals, insurance companies, etc for a free market to work.
gimmethesimplelife
11-24-11, 2:01am
With soaring prices in general, one is free to not purchase the item at all or find lower cost alternatives. With MA health care, I get neither option. I must purchase insurance, and I must purchase all the options the government has deemed that I "need". There is nothing I can do to reduce my cost. That's what is frustrating. I have many more options on my car insurance!
I have been unemployed for 2+ years, although my husband had intermittently found work- the mandatory insurance is our single largest expense and at times quite the hardship. We briefly slipped below the eligibility line for subsidized care for a while- our premium then was about 15% of our usual premium. That's one huge level of subsidization. There is no gradual increase in premium, you pay one low rate under the limit (x), and this very high rate (6.5x) once you make one dollar more. I am a big supporter of socialized medicine, and always have been. Quite likely at some point down the road I will be leaving the US, perhaps permanently (?) due largely to how health care is run here.....It just does not work for me. But having said that, and given that I am a fan of how Massachusetts handles health care, this is not right - that there is no gradual increase in premiums based on income. If Obama's plan see the light of day and is run the same way, minus some points in my support for it, and yes, I did say that! Rob
gimmethesimplelife
11-24-11, 2:05am
It doesn't make sense, Lizii, which is why no other civilized, Western democracy has such a mess of a system, where we pay twice or more what any other of those countries pay for health care, get far less for our dollars, leave perhaps fifty million or more of our citizens without access, and fall further and further behind, while continuing to enrich our health "care" industry with fat profits.
The thing is, the people in this country who DO have good access to health insurance, either through an employer, or their own wealth and ability to pay the bills, don't worry about it, and often are determined not to have to contribute to access for any others.
Costs are spiraling out of control, which will continue until we manage to get some kind of system together to deal with it. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that to happen.
As you can see from some of the above comments.....this thinking is what is preventing the U.S. from having anything like what Canada has, or any of the European nations, some of which have single payer government health care and some that have hybrid systems, or systems based on the private sector, regulated. And none of which have citizens left without care at all, let alone fifty million people, and 3/4 of a million families going bankrupt from medical bills EVERY year.
But.....Alan didn't have to struggle along with a hearth condition and hear that his case wasn't life threatening enough to qualify for emergency care, or have bouts of heart failure, organ damage and other complications because he didn't have money to see a doctor or to pay for an operation. Bae could probably buy the whole hospital himself.......heck, I have Medicare and an excellent supplemental policy....I'm home free, too. (LOVE that socialized Medicare, I do). Although even that isn't "free", as I pay about $100 for the basic Medicare, per month, and $227 for my supplemental policy. At least I'm covered, and well.
It really comes down to whether people have an attitude of "I've got mine, and I'm not going to carry anybody else", or "I've got mine, but I care about whether others have theirs, too", and in the meantime, our costs go up, our health level as a country goes down, many millions have no access, but we have been "saved" from socialism. Don't even LOOK for it to make sense, because it doesn't. JMHOLoosechickens, wonderful post, I could not have said this any better myself and I could not agree more.....Rob
It really comes down to whether people have an attitude of "I've got mine, and I'm not going to carry anybody else", or "I've got mine, but I care about whether others have theirs, too", and in the meantime, our costs go up, our health level as a country goes down, many millions have no access, but we have been "saved" from socialism. Don't even LOOK for it to make sense, because it doesn't. JMHO
Exactly!
The only way you can afford the health care we have in Canada is to stop spending tax monies on war materiels.
herbgeek
11-26-11, 10:06am
Where exactly does one draw the line between "I got mine" and "I have to help everyone else"? Should I pay 25% more to subsidize others? 50%? 200%? Should I have to incur a hardship when I'm unemployed and one dollar over the qualifying limit in order to subsidize a person one dollar under?
FWIW, I pay taxes that support services I don't use (80% of our town budget supports schools), and have no issue with that.
loosechickens
11-26-11, 3:55pm
I don't know, herbgeek, but perhaps it is because you have been socialized to see things like public libraries, public schools (even if you don't read or have children in school) as good for the society and therefore well worth your contributions, whether you use them or not, and you haven't been socialized in this country to see things like everyone having access to quality health care in the same way. In this country, it's kind of been an "every man for himself" sort of arrangement, and we're used to that. Perhaps if we lived in a country that had never had public schools, we'd feel the same way about "our" money being spent on "those people".
Honestly, I think the difference between countries like Canada and the ones in Western Europe is just that, a differing socialization as to what is seen as good for the community, good for the society and therefore good for everyone to contribute to and make sure is available to all.
Where here, since we haven't been socialized to see access to health care in the same way we have been socialized to see public school access to all children as worthy of our dollars, when we are required to contribute toward that, we feel somehow that something is being "taken" from us, as opposed to thinking of ourselves as doing our part to provide for a better society for all.
I agree that cutting off the subsidy for the premiums at an exact number, where if you are a dollar under, you get the subsidy, and a dollar over, you don't, is something that would be far better to have as a sliding scale, where up to a certain income, you get subsidy for the whole premium, above that to another amount, perhaps 75% subsidy, then 50%, etc., so that it wasn't such a black and white thing would be a good idea. But that seems like something that could be adjusted, and not a reason to hate the whole system.
Just my musings this morning........
In this country, it's kind of been an "every man for himself" sort of arrangement, and we're used to that. Perhaps if we lived in a country that had never had public schools, we'd feel the same way about "our" money being spent on "those people".
Honestly, I think the difference between countries like Canada and the ones in Western Europe is just that, a differing socialization as to what is seen as good for the community, good for the society and therefore good for everyone to contribute to and make sure is available to all.
I don't suppose you've considered the possibility that the United States, unlike some other countries, has never automatically defaulted to the government being responsible for every aspect of a person's life.
I think strong, intact families are good for a community, yet progressive policies work against that goal. I believe that we should live in a color blind society, yet progressive policies encourage racial division. I believe that dependence on government is already at an all-time high in this country and that encouraging more is a moral failing. I also believe we can't afford more moral failings.
I have a personal belief that whenever someone talks about "those people", they're projecting their own superior attitudes onto others. Perhaps not at every occurence, but certainly at most.
Just some of my afternoon musings....
I think the government or perhaps private industry ought to initiate a national contest to help solve our most vexing problems. Anyone could participate and all ideas would be considered. All this bickering back and forth based on our own beliefs never solves much of anything. Perhaps there are ideas out there that will never come to light because we all keep doing things the same way. My late afternoon musings.
loosechickens
11-27-11, 2:51am
I think when one has excellent insurance, doesn't have to live with a potentially life threatening health condition because it just hasn't gotten bad enough to be a big enough emergency to get help regardless of insurance coverage, it's easy to talk high flown talk about the excellence of a system that leaves more than fifty million of our citizens without health insurance at all.
Other countries have solved this problem in ways that did not involve some complete government takeover of the health care system, with something like the British system. I'm not sure, but I believe that Germany's health care system is built upon private providers, yet manages to cover all its citizens.
We're supposed to be an "exceptional" country, but we seem completely unable to solve some problems that other countries have dealt with in ways that work well. We pay twice as much for our health care system, yet have demonstrably poorer results, and have fallen behind in many ways in delivery of health care to our citizens, plus having that glaring absence of access at all to many millions of people.
I think we could and should do better, and one of the ways we could is to look to see how other countries have dealt with these problems, seeing what works and what doesn't, analyzing why our access to care is so uneven, costs so much, yets leaves so many vulnerable, instead of floating lots of rhetoric, but seeing three quarters of a million people go bankrupt every year from medical bills. If our way is so great, why are our results so poor? Unless, of course, you're one of the lucky ones, who, when you need a heart operation, say, the doors of the hospital are open to you and coverage available to pay for your care. And you don't even have to wait until you are actually at death's door before you're eligible for care without insurance.
Perhaps you can tell my friend with a heart condition and no insurance, and no company who would sell her a private policy because of those health issues, who needs a heart operation, but because her condition is not "life threatening at this time", she can't get the operation. She must wait until it gets so bad that it IS immediately life threatening, and THEN she can show up at an emergency room and get emergency surgery. An absolutely lousy system. How would YOU have felt, Alan, if you'd been told what she's been told, when you needed YOUR surgery? How would YOU have felt, living with that time bomb inside, waiting until your condition was bad enough that your life was in immediate danger before you could get surgery? because you couldn't get private insurance even if you could pay the premiums, and didn't have the nearly $100,000 such surgery would cost. How many ordinary people in this country could write a check for that surgery? And of the ones who could, how many of those would face a retirement of penury with most or all of their life savings gone to pay for the operation?
I think it's very easy to have high flown ideology in the abstract, especially if the person enjoying it is in a comfortable and well cared for position him or herself. Quite a different thing in actual practice.
Just my late evening musings........
"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to be free...whatever happened to those inspired words on the Statue of Liberty?
As a Canadian, this is what I get to help me:
Unlimited doctor visits;
Medications;
10 physio treatments/year; all without cost to me;
3 government cheques per month:
Old Age Pension;
Unemployment insurance; and
SAFER, payments to those of us who rent our homes.
I have a care aide every evening to make my dinner as well.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.