Socialized Medicine or Free Market -- poll

JackRT said:

Canada just might be the most diverse nation on the face of the earth. Socialism has worked well here --- well, not perfectly because it takes constant attention.

Click to expand...

Canada would be a good exception. What's overlooked in other countries is not only the lack of diversity (compared to the States), but that socialized medicine is part of a society that may include free college, required military service, or state supported churches. All of which would likely be unworkable in the States.

Communism is "cool" because people don't have a grasp of history.

HereIStand said:

Canada would be a good exception. What's overlooked in other countries is not only the lack of diversity (compared to the States), but that socialized medicine is part of a society that may include free college, required military service, or state supported churches. All of which would likely be unworkable in the States.

Click to expand...

Given that America has the dubious distinct of being held in the grips of a conservative agenda, virtually every other liberal democracy in the world appears socialist/communist in comparison!

How much is 2-3 years of one's life worth - that's the average lifespan that Canadians exceed their American counterparts?

Prior to adopting universal healthcare, the average lifespan of Americans and Canadians was approximately the same!

jgarden said:

Given that America has the dubious distinct of being held in the grips of a conservative agenda, virtually every other liberal democracy in the world appears socialist/communist in comparison!

Click to expand...

We're a country based on equality by creation and individual liberty. This is classically liberal. In much of the world, the individual is subsumed into a group, which is an illiberal idea.

HereIStand said:

We're a country based on equality by creation and individual liberty. This is classically liberal. In much of the world, the individual is subsumed into a group, which is an illiberal idea.

Click to expand...

"Equality by creation and individual liberty" doesn't count for much if one has the misfortune of suffering from a "pre-existing condition" whose insurance premiums and high deductibles make healthcare financially inaccessible.

Canadians appear to be of the opinion that they enjoy as many, if not more, of those rights that Americans value - otherwise Trump would be building a second wall as a bulwark against the northern hordes!

jgarden said:

"Equality by creation and individual liberty" doesn't count for much if one has the misfortune of suffering from a "pre-existing condition" whose insurance premiums and high deductibles make healthcare financially inaccessible.

Canadians appear to be of the opinion that they enjoy as many, if not more, of those rights that Americans value - otherwise Trump would be building a second wall as a bulwark against the northern hordes!

Click to expand...

If I apply for auto-insurance and have several speeding tickets, that pre-existing condition will result in higher premiums. The same applies to health insurance, otherwise no company could stay in business.

HereIStand said:

We're a country based on equality by creation and individual liberty. This is classically liberal. In much of the world, the individual is subsumed into a group, which is an illiberal idea.

Click to expand...

In the USA it would be hard to find an individual not subsumed into a group --- Republican, Democrat, Baptist, Catholic, Black, Hispanic, whatever. All of these and others like them are our "tribes".

HereIStand said:

If I apply for auto-insurance and have several speeding tickets, that pre-existing condition will result in higher premiums. The same applies to health insurance, otherwise no company could stay in business.

Click to expand...

What these people want is something worse than auto insurance with a speeding ticket.

They want you to able to buy auto insurance after you smash you car into a tree, and at the same, or lower, rate than someone who has never had an accident. Then they want that auto insurance company pay to fix it, AND provide a rental car while it's in the shop.

HereIStand said:

If I apply for auto-insurance and have several speeding tickets, that pre-existing condition will result in higher premiums. The same applies to health insurance, otherwise no company could stay in business.

Click to expand...

That's why insurance is a bad economic model for healthcare, why it ultimately will not work.

JackRT said:

In the USA it would be hard to find an individual subsumed into a group --- Republican, Democrat, Baptist, Catholic, Black, Hispanic, whatever. All of these and others like them are our "tribes".

Click to expand...

Quite true. In the States, we can't be subsumed into one ethnic group -- Danes, French, Germans, Swedes -- which until recently made socialized government much easier in other countries.

Angel Wings 1288 said:

I'm not the only one affected (not effected) by overpriced prescription pills. Tens of millions of Americans take prescription drugs regularly and have to pay unreasonable prices, even if they are insured. Why are you being so dishonest by saying I'm the only one affected by this problem?

Click to expand...

Hi angelwings,

Merely a point of clarification since you have labeled your antagonist dishonest. The claim was never made that you were the only one affected. The claim was merely that you seem to be more concerned with issues that directly affect you. Also:

af·fect1
əˈfekt/
verb

1. have an effect on; make a difference to.
   "the dampness began to affect my health"
   synonyms: have an effect on, influence, act on, work on, have an impact on, impact;

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

Mountainmanbob said:

Seems most these days in the US want some type of Socialized Medicine. I think that our forefathers would roll over in their graves if they could see the direction in which we are heading.

There is this big call today that everyone should have health care of some type and for the ones who can't afford it, it should be provided for free.

I have worked with the homeless for decades and before ObamaMamaCare these ones always received treatment for free when needed.

M-Bob

Click to expand...

If a person is poor, they can qualify for free government healthcare.

That isn't the issue, and it never has been. The issue is that we don't all qualify for it.

The related issues are what to do with the tens of millions of Americans who do not qualify for it, but cannot afford it. Many of the people who cannot afford it are in that position because of pre-existing conditions. Insurance companies generally speaking, provide compensation in exchange for money based on the risks associated with the obligation of compensation.

If you provide car insurance, you charge your customer based on the risks associated with the coverage you offer. The problem is that some people have medical conditions, many of which they were born with, that insurance companies know will cost them more in providing health services. As a result, they offer some people an affordable rate and others, an unaffordable rate. If you have no insurance and then develop cancer, they don't want to cover you unless you have an absurd amount of money.

That makes sense and it is totally fair. If I am an insurance company I can calcuate costs of the risks associated with all the healthy people I cover. Once in a while, someone will get really sick. What I don't want is to have people not paying in, but then demanding coverage once they get sick at the same rate. If someone was born with health problems and I know the risk related costs associated with offering them coverage, I want to charge them more too.


Obamacare was a compromise between the government and insurance agencies. Everyone has to have insurance, but then no one can be turned away or charged more for coverage.

HereIStand said:

Quite true. In the States, we can't be subsumed into one ethnic group -- Danes, French, Germans, Swedes -- which until recently made socialized government much easier in other countries.

Click to expand...

I haven't seen an explanation of why that should make an insurmountable difference. All of them find a way to make distinctions among themselves: An Austrian is not a Bavarian, as far as Austrians and Bavarians are concerned.

jimmyjimmy said:

God created the free market system. It's beauty is found in its simplicity and fairness. Two parties engage in a free exchange. Both get what they desire, as they trade what they want less for what they want more.

People have become very confused about what rights are. They often speak of commodities as "rights"; however, we know that nothing that can be purchased is a right.

A right must be exercised through your own initiative and action. It is not a claim on others. A right is not actualized and implemented by the actions of others. This means you do not have the right to the time in another person’s life. You do not have a right to other people’s money. You do not have the right to another person’s property. WHAT IS A RIGHT?​

Click to expand...

In order to exist as a society, we have given up some rights in exchange for protection by the government. Our conduct as individuals is regulated by the government in order to function more effectively. I do not have the ability to do whatever I want. In the same way, companies have been given protections in exchange for giving up some of their rights. A totally free market is economic anarchy, where businesses have the ability to do whatever they want without restriction from the government.

Unfortunately, some people equate restrictions or limitation on how business can be conducted, a limited regulation of the economy by the government, with centrally planned economies found in communist states. These centrally planned economies had the government dicating quotas on everything. They determined how much coal would be mined, how much and what kind of food would be produced, and how many cars would be made.

We do not have to choose between an economic anarchy, or an economy totally controlled by the government. We can have, and have had for some time, economies in which they government regulates some aspects for the common good.

Greyy said:

Obamacare was a compromise between the government and insurance agencies. Everyone has to have insurance, but then no one can be turned away or charged more for coverage.

Click to expand...

And the compensation to the insurance companies was that people who were statistically low risk were mandated to enter the policy pool.

(I'd point out that "low risk" does not mean "no risk.")

357magnum said:

Who wants to pay much more for medical care, have fewer choices, wait longer for it, and get lower quality when it finally becomes your turn? No thanks!

Click to expand...

Socialized medicine costs society a lot less. The current system requires a lot of unneccessary paper pushing between hospitals and insurance companies and the employers that offer insurance. Can you imagine if we completely privatized roads? There would be huge costs associated with determining usage, billing, enforcement of billing and the numerous related billing issues.

HereIStand said:

Canada would be a good exception. What's overlooked in other countries is not only the lack of diversity (compared to the States), but that socialized medicine is part of a society that may include free college, required military service, or state supported churches. All of which would likely be unworkable in the States.

Click to expand...

Hi hereistand,

I read your post and I consider myself to be a reasonably intelligent person and generally have a pretty solid grasp of the definitions of words and how, by putting words together in a string, cogent thoughts are transported to others. However, in reading the words of you your post, I honestly can't seem to grasp the correlation that you seem to be saying must necessarily exist between the social constructs that you mention and their direct relationship on the issue of healthcare. I can find at least a dozen of the nations that have some sort of largely government sponsored and supported healthcare systems that don't offer any of the other social programs that you mention.

So, for the simple minded such as myself, would you be so kind as to explain why a society that has government sponsored or supported healthcare must also be one that has free college, required military service and state supported churches?

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

HereIStand said:

That sounds reasonable. That's not how the pro-subsidized health care argument is presented in the States though.

Click to expand...

It isn't a difficult concept.

As a society, we recognize that there are things everyone should have access to and we all pay for it. We all have the right to protection from police and access to the justice system. We determined that everyone has a right, and that is serves the common good, to provide everyone access to a basic education.

No one should be deprived of their right to life, any more than their right to justice, because of money.

jimmyjimmy said:

Why should a company be forced to sell its products at a price lower than they wish to sell them? That is completely unjust.

Click to expand...

Those drug makers receive all kinds of protections and benefits from the government they would not have in anarchy. First and foremost, they benefit from the vast sums of money we taxpayers spend on scientific research. These companies aren't going into the woods, chopping down a tree, and then selling the fruit of their pure labor. They build upon existing knowledge. Second, they are given monopolies to sell their products as compensation for their research expenses.

Price negotiations are used by just about every government to the benefit of their people, leaving us Americans to pay the bills. This is in fact a business model. If you want to sell drugs in our market, you have to cut a deal with us.