Socialised medicine

[EnemyPartyII]

I often encounter American conservatives who, for various reasons, seem to think that socialised medicine that would provide a universal base standard of healthcare for all American citizens, would be a bad thing. Usually, the reasons for why this would be negative are vague, at best, but often include comments about how communism is bad, or the free market ensures quality, or how government isn't supposed to provide a safety net for incompetents, and most common of all, "tax payers shouldn't have to pay for other people's benefits", and similar.

So, I was wondering, now that the US government has just handed over the massive, multi-trillion dollar bail out to the nation's banks, and nationalised something like a 5th of all US banking services, I was wondering if there were any people out there who still want to claim that a government subsidised healthcare system is necesarily a bad thing, now that the government has set the precedent of paying off the massive private debts of the banks?

 

[Holy Roller]

Take it from a man who knows people and is well-versed with all things Wall Street: This $700B bailout is a corporate welfare program, and of the most abject order.
Socialized medicine is in fact in-line with current and historical Jewish thinking and morals, and in-line with Christian morals as well. I am and always was for socialized medical care.
I was gonna vote for Hilary Rodham, but I'll just have to go with Obama Bin Laden this Nov 04th...

 

[Holy Roller]

I often encounter American conservatives who, for various reasons, seem to think that socialised medicine that would provide a universal base standard of healthcare for all American citizens, would be a bad thing. Usually, the reasons for why this would be negative are vague, at best, but often include comments about how communism is bad, or the free market ensures quality, or how government isn't supposed to provide a safety net for incompetents, and most common of all, "tax payers shouldn't have to pay for other people's benefits", and similar.

So, I was wondering, now that the US government has just handed over the massive, multi-trillion dollar bail out to the nation's banks, and nationalised something like a 5th of all US banking services, I was wondering if there were any people out there who still want to claim that a government subsidised healthcare system is necesarily a bad thing, now that the government has set the precedent of paying off the massive private debts of the banks?

<snipped by H/R>
As we are all agonizingly well aware, Rush Limbaugh does not have nor has he ever had a college degree. Not even an Associates.

The problem with Conservatives is they'll likely say something that is free of original thinking and utterly shallow (not to mention ultimately false), like, "It isn't the Republican's fault they got the bailout, it's Congress's fault! (...Liberal Congress!...)"
Ask them why GWB urged Congress to approve the welfare bill and they will be left speechless.

 

[stan1980]

Take it from a man who knows people and is well-versed with all things Wall Street: This $700B bailout is a corporate welfare program, and of the most abject order.
Socialized medicine is in fact in-line with current and historical Jewish thinking and morals, and in-line with Christian morals as well. I am and always was for socialized medical care.
I was gonna vote for Hilary Rodham, but I'll just have to go with Obama Bin Laden this Nov 04th...

I would have had you nailed on as a republican, Holy Roller!

Anyway, this is probably the first time I've agreed with you (on state medical care), so yes I think it is a good idea, and glad we have it in my country.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

I don't support the bailout, but I strongly support socialised universal healthcare that is free at the point of use. It's so non-controversial in this country that where there is controversy it's about the fact you often have to pay a few dollars an hour to park outside a hospital, or about $10 for prescriptions (if you work, don't get benefits and are between 18 and 65). As much as I, and many other people, get up in arms about issues like that, at least I can look across the Atlantic and see just how lucky we are when people with cancer are becoming homeless so they can afford to be treated over there.

The evidence to support socialised medicine is overwhelming. The US spends more per capita than any other country, and still has the highest infant mortality rate in the developed world, for example; the 37th best healthcare system (just below third world countries like Cuba and Guatemala), and a shorter average lifespan than any other developed country. Not to mention that if there were universal healthcare, people would be much better off and end up paying far less in taxes per year if we can be reasonable and accept that the cost of healthcare, it being a necessity, is realistically a stealth tax.

Fundamentally, the very idea that the poor should be left to die on the streets is as abhorrent as the idea that non-whites should be second class citizens or wimmin should not have property and voting rights. Supporters of free-market healthcare have to wrap it up in lies and propaganda to cover the evil truth of their proposition. And even a passing glance at countries like Canada or France shows us what they say about socialised medicine is way off the mark.

 

[cantata]

I still find it astonishing that the US doesn't have socialised healthcare.

It's so, well... backward.

 

[FrederickM]

Unfortunately, truth is it is the 'capitalist' countries of the world that have benefited from communism and still retain its ideas. The actual communist countries gained nothing from communism and are more capitalist than the capitalist countries.

Workers unions, came with the huge wave of communist and socialist ideas.
Health care, free schooling, these are socialist ideas. They are at least applied in my country. In NZ the Labour party used to be a communist party.

Whilst in countries like China, workers have no rights over their bosses, there is no free schooling, health care is slowly being established.

 

[Sycophant]

Unfortunately, truth is it is the 'capitalist' countries of the world that have benefited from communism and still retain its ideas. The actual communist countries gained nothing from communism and are more capitalist than the capitalist countries.

Workers unions, came with the huge wave of communist and socialist ideas.
Health care, free schooling, these are socialist ideas. They are at least applied in my country. In NZ the Labour party used to be a communist party.

Whilst in countries like China, workers have no rights over their bosses, there is no free schooling, health care is slowly being established.

There is a tendency to use socialist and communist interchangeably. It's not right.

At it's simplest communism is supposed to be an ideal where all the citizens work as a commune for the common good. All citizens are employees of the state, and the state provides for all their needs. There are pretty fundamental flaws with it, and while it can and does co-exist with capitalism there are big issues with doing so.

Socialism on the other hand is more general and tends to contains ideals about individuals, through governments, supporting and improving society for the better. It is unavoidable and exists to some degree in every country.

Socialism in the US already exists - public services like police and firefighters, education, transport infrastructure. All those things have some basis is socialist thought - the government providing things for the betterment and benefit of society.

Some aspects that are associated with socialism are also intended to help balance things in capitalism. Labour unions, regulation, etc.

The best argument I've seen against socialised/universal healthcare in the US is essentially "the government can barely manage anything, how can they be expected to manage this?" - which has some validity, but in practice I doubt it would be a huge issue really.

In the context of developed nations, the US offers the least in the way of public healthcare. It is hard to understand really.

As for New Zealand, our situation is interesting too. All our policital parties are essentially socialist in that none would advocate an end to public healthcare or social programmes. The Labour party was never a communist party, but does have 'socialist' roots, but so do most of our political parties really.

 

[stan1980]

Just a quick one on the bailout. For those opposed, have you any idea the consequences for virtually everyone if there was a run and collapse of the banks? Your quality of life would sink to a level previously unimaginable in western countries. There would be a very real chance of millions starving.

Doing nothing would be negligent, you might not like the fact it is you that has to bail out the banks, but failure does not even bear thinking about.

 

[cantata]

Doing nothing would be negligible

Negligent, I think.

As you were.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

Just a quick one on the bailout. For those opposed, have you any idea the consequences for virtually everyone if there was a run and collapse of the banks? Your quality of life would sink to a level previously unimaginable in western countries. There would be a very real chance of millions starving.

Doing nothing would be negligent, you might not like the fact it is you that has to bail out the banks, but failure does not even bear thinking about.

I'm against the structure of the bailout to the point I simply can't support it. We need to defend jobs, public services and keep prices and bills down, and I don't think the way to do that is through the system of avarice, profligacy and selfishness that got us in to this mess. At the very least, there should have been much, much harsher conditions in the deal, such as criminalising all bonuses at boardroom level indefinitely until we have a full year of positive growth, total and permanent nationalisation and a guarantee that no jobs outside of the boardroom whatsoever will be lost.

Sadly, the people have got a terrible deal. I think now would be a great time to look at at least narrowing significantly the separation between the political and economic. The City and the bankers hold society to ransom when times are 'good' (i.e for them) well aware that their uncaring greed could lead to immense poverty and suffering. And then they come begging when they've gambled everything away and need more cash to get their fix.
I say f*** em. The working classes have been dying as they can't afford heating in winter, going hungry because wages and benefits are so low, and living in substandard housing throughout the years of excess, so forgive me if I have little sympathy for these scum now they're facing a reality they largely cause that can be witnessed on council estates up and down the country.

 

[stan1980]

I'm against the structure of the bailout to the point I simply can't support it. We need to defend jobs, public services and keep prices and bills down, and I don't think the way to do that is through the system of avarice, profligacy and selfishness that got us in to this mess. At the very least, there should have been much, much harsher conditions in the deal, such as criminalising all bonuses at boardroom level indefinitely until we have a full year of positive growth, total and permanent nationalisation and a guarantee that no jobs outside of the boardroom whatsoever will be lost.

Sadly, the people have got a terrible deal. I think now would be a great time to look at at least narrowing significantly the separation between the political and economic. The City and the bankers hold society to ransom when times are 'good' (i.e for them) well aware that their uncaring greed could lead to immense poverty and suffering. And then they come begging when they've gambled everything away and need more cash to get their fix.
I say f*** em. The working classes have been dying as they can't afford heating in winter, going hungry because wages and benefits are so low, and living in substandard housing throughout the years of excess, so forgive me if I have little sympathy for these scum now they're facing a reality they largely cause that can be witnessed on council estates up and down the country.

So what do you suggest, that we don't bail out the banks, let the economy collapse to a possibly unrecoverable position, probably resulting in massive logistical problems that could turn a country into a 3rd world nation, culminating in millions of people starving to death... all to spite the banks?

Thing is, everyone benefits from the debt society we have, it makes the world (the western world) go round.

 

[PsychMJC]

Take it from a man who knows people and is well-versed with all things Wall Street: This $700B bailout is a corporate welfare program, and of the most abject order.
Socialized medicine is in fact in-line with current and historical Jewish thinking and morals, and in-line with Christian morals as well. I am and always was for socialized medical care.
I was gonna vote for Hilary Rodham, but I'll just have to go with Obama Bin Laden this Nov 04th...

I never thought I would agree with you either.. and by the by, lets leave the "Obama Bin Laden" [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth] out k? Its tired.

 

[wanderingone]

Just a quick one on the bailout. For those opposed, have you any idea the consequences for virtually everyone if there was a run and collapse of the banks? Your quality of life would sink to a level previously unimaginable in western countries. There would be a very real chance of millions starving.

Doing nothing would be negligent, you might not like the fact it is you that has to bail out the banks, but failure does not even bear thinking about.

A primary concern of the bailout is regulations and control-- throwing money at financial institutions that failed and allowing them to continue as they were is what a large number of people were concerned about. Sure, There's an initial "screw 'em" type emotion when it comes to looking at the failure of the "big banks" -- people wonder what are the returns for putting us deeper and deeper in debt while most of the folks who caused the problems walk away relatively comfortable.

 

[jcook922]

I'm biased since I have TriCare and have never been affected grievously by medical costs, but I base my opinion on the fact that socialized medicine, in the countries where it is put into practice, is the single most expensive bill for all of those countries. This bailout was expensive, socialized medicine is expensive, and I think our nation needs to start penny pinching to try and get out of debt.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

I'm biased since I have TriCare and have never been affected grievously by medical costs, but I base my opinion on the fact that socialized medicine, in the countries where it is put into practice, is the single most expensive bill for all of those countries. This bailout was expensive, socialized medicine is expensive, and I think our nation needs to start penny pinching to try and get out of debt.

The US spends the most per capita on healthcare, however, and since this doesn't result in comparably high levels of quality it seems to reason between the disparity must be the private system itself.

 

[stan1980]

Incidentally, I do find it strange to say the precedent is set when the government bails out banks. The precedent was set as soon as governments started taxing and spending money on anything, from your roads, to street lighting, to schools, to the fire service and so on.

I see health care as incredibly important, you either think it should be reserved for those who can afford it or you don't. If you think the former, I have to admit, I'd probably see you as quite selfish, uncaring even for those unfortunate to be more disadvantaged than yourself. The same goes for schools and any other public service. And I'm not even a socialist by most peoples standards!

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

So what do you suggest, that we don't bail out the banks, let the economy collapse to a possibly unrecoverable position, probably resulting in massive logistical problems that could turn a country into a 3rd world nation, culminating in millions of people starving to death... all to spite the banks?

Thing is, everyone benefits from the debt society we have, it makes the world (the western world) go round.

Of course I don't want that, but I don't think we should assume, without looking at alternatives, that going back to relatively unfettered free markets is the only solution. There's nothing inevitable, imo, about the system we have and now would be the time to look at alternatives.

'this idea of choice which capitals talks about on whether you have a choice- choice depends on the freedom to choose. And if you're shackled with debt, you don't have a freedom to choose.'--Tony Benn.

 

[jcook922]

The US spends the most per capita on healthcare, however, and since this doesn't result in comparably high levels of quality it seems to reason between the disparity must be the private system itself.

That is interesting information, although I don't think the BAILOUT sets a bad precedent, I think socializing medicine might. Military base pay isn't a whole lot, because of our housing being free, and so alot of lower ranking enlisted have serious problems with paying their bills outside of that. I really don't want to see them go from medicine, to a stepping stone effect to other services. Next thing you know it'll be car insurance. I'm not staunchly against it, just very wary, I believe one of the greatest parts of a capitalist economy is that businesses competing drives prices and deals down so that people buy the best product they can get for the best price, a monopoly prevents that.

 

[stan1980]

Of course I don't want that, but I don't think we should assume, without looking at alternatives, that going back to relatively unfettered free markets is the only solution. There's nothing inevitable, imo, about the system we have and now would be the time to look at alternatives.

'this idea of choice which capitals talks about on whether you have a choice- choice depends on the freedom to choose. And if you're shackled with debt, you don't have a freedom to choose.'--Tony Benn.

Honestly, I'd love to hear these better alternatives. To cut a long story short, the problem with socialism is it is inefficient and absolute cripples economic growth. The incentive to make something or be rewarded for your hard work diminishes. A free market isn't perfect in reality either, as it neglects the poorest, and people born into poverty will find it hard to get out of it. Which is why we have some sort of balance.

I love the idea of everyone being equal, but in reality it just doesn't work, and you just end up with a rubbish economy and everyone is lumbered with a poor standard of living, a standard of living that would arguably be worse than what most the working class have today.