Is government health care socialism?

reply to post by jam321


Nice to meet you too! I don't post many threads but it's always nice to meet new friends no matter what their thoughts.

reply to post by damwel

I think you're right. Some sort of reform in our healthcare system is necessary. I'd love it if we could diminish the influence of big pharma corporations on the FDA and our elected officials, for instance.

Sadly, with the way our country is being run at this point, I fear nothing good can come out of Congress. They continue to prove that it is not our interests which are their primary concern.

There are definitely polarizing views and goals between our two main parties. I think that's a good thing, working together and compromising could help us prioritize better, check-and-balance. They're being manipulated though, by lobbyists when it comes to politicians, and by the media in the case of the people. They don't seem to want to listen to one another and work things out.

Perhaps if we had a more limited government as Ron Paul suggests, then maybe a healthcare bill like the one Kucinich suggests could work out for us. And yes, there are unicorns and fairies in that utopia too.

reply to post by amari
]

Well excuse me if I misjudged your thought. Was it more Sarah Palin? Explain please, if you would.

reply to post by eMachine


I agree with what you are saying and I apologize if I have broaden the scope of the conversation to be more absolute than what is real.
I do like Ron Paul's ideals and if he becomes instrumental in exposing the FED, God bless him, we need more like him and Dennis K for that matter.



[edit on 4-9-2009 by damwel]

reply to post by amari


I wasn't born here yesterday, thanks for your input, move along...

reply to post by eMachine
Thanks, I agree with you, the big Pharma companies are just as responsible to the rape of the public as the health insurance companies. As I hinted earlier there is not just one enemy in the defense of the individual. Again though it isn't just about the one sometimes it is about the whole. How socialist can I get? Socialism is bad?

(Jeeze, I sound like Ken Wilber)

Huh, nobody left? I should have said, Bush was a Nazi that left our country with the biggest WAR debt that the left could ever hope to deal with.... Oops, and his Grandpa made the gas that killed the Jews.




[edit on 5-9-2009 by damwel]

Socialism- means taking what you have and dispersing it to the have nots

without you permission. Helping change the oil in you neighbors car is not

socialism it is being a good neighbor this is what has made America great in the

past and will in the future. We have been and still are a great giving nation to

the rest of the world .


Palin, where art though Palin. We need more great Weople like her that believe

in family, this once Republic, freedom, free enterprise and the Constitution of

the United States of America the backbone of this great country. Weople

make a country and not socialism. ^Y^

Not sure if it is social, but I can't help but think going to the Doctor would be a lot like the licence bureau.
Take a # sit down and wait and wait!

edit;; My M.D. is kinda old school he claims jokingly that..
85% of the ppl that go to the doctor didn't need to go at all
15% that do are going to die anyways

He claims that 75-80% of his income comes from needless visits from silly hypocondriac soccer moms..

[edit on 5-9-2009 by Doc Holiday]

Originally posted by Doc Holiday
Not sure if it is social, but I can't help but think going to the Doctor would be a lot like the licence bureau.
Take a # sit down and wait and wait!

You are so right take a number and wait and wait after you waited months to

see a doctor. Oh, not to mention your life history you must provide and fill out

while you are waiting and waiting. It is funny you mention license bureau the

state of Florida has doubled auto tag and license fees this last week. Can you

say out of money like the rest of the country.

Every one wants to compare the government run Canadian Healthcare plan

to the proposed government healthcare plan in the U.S. One slight problem

we have 300,000,000 people in this country and Canada has 16,000,000.

Can you say long lines and a bureaucratic nightmare. Where is the money

going to come from for this supposed government healthcare, oh I know we

will pull it out of our ____. ^Y^

Yes, it is certainly socialism, as is any pooling of public resources by the government in order to meet a need or demand of society. Fire and police departments and public highways are socialist programs as well. It doesn't necessarily mean that they are bad things and many times, they are not.

That said, I do oppose the national healthcare system, but not specifically because it is 'socialist'.

reply to post by Doc Holiday

85% of the ppl that go to the doctor didn't need to go at all

My children doctor has told me just about the same. And if government could ever find a way to eliminate this abuse, I imagine we wouldn't have to wait, wait, wait.

Originally posted by amari
Socialism- The freedom of choice by your government to tell the Weople what to do like it or not. ^Y^

[edit on 4-9-2009 by amari]

Ah, what is socialism? Something everyone should understand as we take on these debates. Wiki does a pretty good job explaining it and it's various types. Socialism in not fixed to one modus of operandi, in it's various forms i think there elements that everyone can agree on.

For example, one aspect of socialism is state control of the money supply. Does not everyone want to get rid of the Fed?

Another aspect is compensation in line with performance. Anyone here against this?

Wiki - Socialism

Socialism refers to various theories of economic organization advocating state, worker or public ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with an egalitarian method of compensation.[1][2][3] Contrary to popular belief, socialism is not a political system; it is an economic system distinct from capitalism.

Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and derives its wealth through exploitation, creates an unequal society, does not provide equal opportunities for everyone to maximize their potentialities and does not utilize technology and resources to their maximum potential nor in the interests of the public. Therefore socialists advocate the creation of a society that allows for the widespread application of modern technology to rationalize economic activity by eliminating the anarchy in production of capitalism[4], allowing for wealth and power to be distributed based on the amount of work expended in production, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how and to what extent this could be achieved.

Some socialists advocate complete nationalization of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy.

reply to post by damwel

I think socialism is if my neighbor doesn't know how to change the oil in his car I can walk over and slide under his car, loosen a bolt and drain his oil into a pan he bought at wallmart.

My definition of socialism is when your neighbor doesn't ever change his oil and his car breaks down, the whole neighborhood has no choice but to chip in and pay to tow and repair his car!

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/126fa7e34aed.jpg[/atsimg]

[edit on 5-9-2009 by ofhumandescent]

reply to post by damwel

I couldn't agree more! When the Government steps in and helps, because it is such a large, uniform, overall governing body, it does dampen the effects of large corporations; assuming of course that the Government has the best interest in the people, not the money. Social care systems work and when you payer higher taxes, it benefits everyone (if spent properly).
People fear words like communism and socialism like they are swine flu hype but in truth, don't know the actual benefits of them when they are executed properly. Government intervention and regulation works, including within the boundires of social health care.

Where I live, the company that provides us with electricity is a crown corporation with heavy government regulation. We have some of the lowest rates in the world.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8204bef31df1.jpg[/atsimg]

[edit on 5-9-2009 by ofhumandescent]

The debate should not be whether government run health care is socialism, but whether it is the best option for America. Socialism is not necessarily bad and free markets are not always good. Anybody who has taken freshman economics knows that private markets sometimes fail or lead to undesirable results.

The fact of the matter is America has ALWAYS had socialized industries. For example, the fire fighting industry used to free market and capitalist, but colonial towns learned the hard way it was more efficient to have a socialized fire department rather than to have private individuals pay for private fire departments to put out fires.

Maybe socialized medicine is bad for America. Every other industrialized nation on Earth opted for socialized medicine and none of them want to turn back. Perhaps medicine is yet another industry, like fire fighting, that is prone to market failures.

Personally I do think it's a socialistic policy, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's bad. Many European counties, and others like Canada, etc can be seen as having an element of Socialism to them, but the overwhelming policies are Democratic/Capitalist. None of those counties have fallen to a Stalinist Communist Fascist Despotic Totalitarianism yet as far as I can tell, they're getting by OK.

I don't think I'd like to like in a totally socialist country, I think it's too much idealism, and wouldn't work as the prevailing ideology, as it depends too much on human nature being good (which I'm not convinced of) but I think it works fine when it's just to provide that social safety net, so that people can still get the basics like food/housing/medicine.

In my view it's this poor human nature which has forced it into being done by government. I'd rather it wasn't, I'd rather that we as humans would do more for charity and helping our neighbors, but we just don't seem to be that way in general, we seem to think of ourselves more in local geographical or ethnic grounds, and only will help ourselves, and maybe our close friends and family. It seems to be our nature that we are greedy and selfish, with only some adjustment for our local 'tribe'. It could be something that we have evolved, but many other people have written about topics such as altruism and evolution, so I'll leave it at that...

i completely believe in the free market. but health insurance is more like a life necessity and far less like car insurance. to look at it as "socialism" is far fetched. utilities like natural gas, water and electricity are heavily regulated and need to justify any price increase to a regulator. just like the health insurance markets, the utilities are also few with a large coverage area because you can't just lay pipe to start up another utility. how would you feel if the sewage utility would drop your coverage because you are making too much sewage? or they would jack up your rates but your neighbor would pay far less for the same service?

health insurance should be similarly heavily regulated and preferably mandated to be non-profit with caps on salaries and bonuses. medicare should be an "option" for anyone who needs it but people and employers should be able to get private coverage if they want the "gold card" type of treatment.

i don't believe the govt should run hospitals or doctor's offices or medical companies. what i do believe is that the govt should fund research heavily either through a price match or a majority share and the companies that receive these funds should be mandated to sell the product at a discounted profit (meaning full production cost plus a small capped profit) since the risk was not entirely taken by the private company.

once the cost of health drops the private companies will be able to compete with countries that already offer "free" healthcare and less jobs will go overseas.

any reform that will mandate private coverage for anyone in this country without heavily regulating rates and practices (pre-existing conditions, dropping coverage, delaying approvals until patient dies, etc) and without providing a medicare alternative is just a pro-corporation "reform" which will line the pockets of CEOs and won't help people at all.

to end i'll add that most people who are against health care & health insurance reform are those that would benefit most or already benefit from it (old enough to be on medicare). they scream communism and socialism and fascism but they have no idea what it really means.

Originally posted by amari
Socialism- The freedom of choice by your government to tell the Weople what to do like it or not. ^Y^

[edit on 4-9-2009 by amari]

raw capitalism---if you don't have the money for your own healthcare, you will die. the wealthy and well-off have their own money for healthcare---they will live.
quite simple really.
2 classes of people. just like in burma, laos, some middle eastern countries and most african countries.

but we here in america are still 37th in the world as far as healthcare for it's people....yipeee!!!!! yahoooo!!! thank god the republicans and right- wingers have kept the taxes low for healthcare, because that allows us middle class people to pay huge percentages of our income to insurance companies.

[edit on 5-9-2009 by jimmyx]

[edit on 5-9-2009 by jimmyx]