ScreamingEagle
Gold Member
- Jul 5, 2004
- 13,399
- 1,706
- 245
If we didn't depend on employers for health care things would be a lot better.We still run against those who dont fall below the "poverty line", we keep the beurocracy and we just end up with more uninsured and underinsured which is the problem we are facing now.
You really are quite the little social engineer, aren't you? Who are you or anybody to determine whether a car is a necessity or not for other people?Cars arent really a neccessity, and for areas that it is because of the way we HAVE set our community up can be fixed to deal with that problem and I think we should. We arent having a problem with those issues like we are with health care. We should definitely provide those things (except autos) for people who truly cant provide them for themselves. Those issues arent in crisis either as health care is.
Commune? That sounds kinda like communism. Actually it sounds like is you live in a typical condo/townhouse development that has common areas to maintain. Except for the electrical - do you have separate meters or not? I used to rent an apartment where I had to go to the laundry room - hated it. Most condos/townhomes you buy here have their own washer/dryer hookups.Well in many ways I already do. I live in a socialized nation and one that pays some of the highest taxes in the world.
Secondly my property tax is paid directly to a local "commune" and its called a "rent". My kommun (commune is just like a sub-division really) and we all determine how the money is spent. We decide what power company we will use, what garbage collection, what cable company, what internet providers etc. We even allocate the money for the beautification (planting flowers, trees, people to go around and keep the litter cleaned up, landscaping etc). We have a gym even! We also have a big laundry room people can sign up for so for those that done have machines can use and also they are good for large items like coats and comforters etc. You just sign up for 2 hour blocks.
I find it has given me MORE say and control over my money, not less.
I wouldn't count on socialism to improve life in the long run….and there are certainly plenty of problems with socialized medicine. America is not based on socialism. That's why it is such a success despite it problems.Well its importance is it our tool to keep our societies running smoothly and in a way that improves life for all those who live in the society.
The US has no obligation to "cover everyone". Much of the overspending problem in the U.S. is due to government interference in the health care system. Our original free market system has been changed so the provider and the patient both are not directly responsible for payment. Thus crooked doctors and hypochondriac patients abused the system and costs went up. Government regulations that require this and require that have also induced skyrocking prices. Bureacracy, both government and insurance, also contribute to the increased costs. If people had the responsibilty to pay for their own health care, costs would come down. If "price caps" were to be put in place, providers would go broke unless taxes were levied to pick up the slack. A free market is the only way to go.The US is spending more yet isnt covering everyone. Much of that problem is DUE to private markets. You cant really have a "free market" in health care and expect it to work like it would on many other commodities. Health care demand is not dictated by its price or availability...its dicated by your bodies health needs. If a person has a child who is sick and needs an anti-biotic.....they will pay whatever it takes and with whatever they have really.
One reason the US pays more is that the govt isnt putting any sort of price caps in place, they allow it to go pretty "free". The US is overcharged for almost EVERYTHING associated with health care and due to the system...its also quite heavy with beurocracy. None of that is cost effective.
Many people "demonize" the poor because many do not like forced charity through forced taxation and because many poor abuse the system. It probably would be better to move charity to the private sector except for maybe a small core group of the most needy and get rid of the "entitlement" attitude and political footballs. Socialism is an immoral answer to the problems.Because the PEOPLE will demonize the poor and not want to spend much money on them...its works like that. Programs like welfare, food stamps and free health care are demonized and as people are upset about the waste of their tax money and politicians needs to cut in areas...they choose programs for the poor who DONT fund their campaigns over cutting in areas that will affect big business that WILL fund their campaigns and careers.
Who says we are not ALL paying right now? Except for the poor of course. Why should politicians have any say in our personal health care? Nevertheless, that's what happens with socialized medicine or universal health care or whatever you want to call it - as costs go up (and they will), services will get rationed.When we all pay and all participate...then we create good quality. When politicians talk of cutting health care they wont just affect the poor, they affect US ALL and therefore cant pull it off very well. The goal then becomes to be EFFICIENT and get the most you can for every penny.
Yes you can, when you control your own health care, you or your family can choose which clinic or doctor you wish to help you. If there is competition in a free market you can shop around and choose the best price and services. Or if it is a catastrophic event your insurance coverage would kick in to cover the big costs. Health care is basically like any other service you pay for. The better clinics and doctors are going to charge more, of course, because they provide better services and are in more demand. You get what you pay for - in a free market. If we revamped our system properly, there would be no good reason for anyone to lose their home or whatever. We don't need the government and the insurance companies telling us what to do.No you cant, when you are sick you are not in a strong position to negotiate anything. You are competing against people with more money who will pay more when they are sick as well....no one is going to lower the price for YOU when they can make more by selling at higher rates to those who can afford and many who cant but MAKE it happen by making some other serious sacrafices and go into debt trying. *some people have lost homes, college funds etc*
Health care is driven by supply and demand just as any other service. Many would choose to use their money for alternative health care doctors to prevent getting sick. When you are sick you will go to the doctor who will give you the best value for your money. If it is catastrophic you would have your insurance to cover bigger costs, so I don't see the problem.You arent going to have a clinic down the street ready to give you better rates and pharm companies arent all that easy for a small guy to start. Health care isnt driven by demand and supply rules as other things are. Health care is more unique than that and has its own elements that take it out of that realm. You dont go to the doctor because its cheap, you go because you are sick.
Most wealthy people in America do not get their wealth from inheritance. Most get it by being industrious and making it on their own. We all have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in America. That does not mean, however, we have a right to a trip to Disneyland or a right to health care. If Americans must provide for a plethora of "rights" that socialists want, we will become serfs to the requirement to provide those things. It is not a right to impose a duty on others. In America you only have the right to pursue happiness, not to receive it.Yes many poor people are irresponsible, so are many middle class people and so are many rich people. Its a bit ridiculous to punish only poorer folks for a human nature that we ALL have at times and to varying degrees. Also, most wealth is inherited, not earned. That means that those with more wealth are not inherently more deserving because they are more responsible...its the luck of birth.
An open market on health care is not going to bring rates down, as I already said...its not subject to the same supply and demand rules and effects many other industries are. It has unique features that make that a fact.
I also grew up with the manta that free markets are the answer to everything. It is the answer for many things, but not all things. We go to extreme with it just as communism goes to extreme with socialism.
An open market will bring down the cost of health care. In fact it is even happening in your own adopted country of Sweden. Their old socialized system failed. As more and more of their health system is privatized, costs are coming down and quality of care is better.
There is no way Americans are going to give up their cars. Believe me.That is somthing that can be rectified. We can certainly have busses, trains, subways and bike routes etc. Its better for the environment, its relieves some dependence on oil, it helps people get more active (walking to bus stops, from stop to home or work, bikes etc)....and its cheaper!
You dont have to be a small country either. You just break it down into the managable sizes (zones) and create the mass transit system. It provides jobs as well! Not just to build it, but also to maintain it and run it.
You don't seem to understand socialism. It's government controlling big business, not separating the two.Yes, well I am advocating a socialist program here. Its not a dirty word as you seem to imply...just as capitalism, privatization, or free markets are not dirty words. We need a mix of all those concepts in the right places.
Separating the govt from big business would entail more than a socialist program, on that I agree. It would have to be done with reforms on elections and donations to elections....rules on private investment for politicians as well as conflicts of interest and rules limiting the possibility for them to go in and out of the public to private sector (they join the public sector to do favors for private corps for promises of a job in the private sector and do so numerous times creating a revolving door that gives them influence they shouldnt have and that they use for those private business interests).
Not a false premise at all. We already provide food stamps and government housing to the poor. If they control our health care, who's to say what is next? The food industry is a big business - why not socialize it too? I'm sure many socialists would agree.Well I certainly dont need or want the govt to provide everything. You are now dealing in extremes...the ALL one way of ALL the other way. Its a false premise.
Oh wow, "free" health care and "free" day care and "free" college….nirvana on earth (sarcasm). Frankly, I'm not impressed nor interested.I am well aware that socialization means more tax money, I pay those higher taxes. But then I also look at expenditures I dont HAVE because they are provided from the me and other tax payers and I am happy about it. For instance, college here is free. Its merit based, you must have the grades each program requires to get in. I dont have to save for my sons college, (or my own should I choose to go)...he must earn it on his own.
Day care is subsidized, I didnt live here when I had need but it would have been nice and I am glad to see families have that available. My son will hopefully one day have his own family and I am glad that he will have this. We also pay for parents to have 1 full year at home with a new baby (to be split between them). Its support of families..a new family dosent have to worry about the health care aspect nor day care AND can be at home with the baby for the first year as well without losing their job and also have their income. It makes for a less stressful society and it gives kids a GREAT start in life. My taxes on this are well spent.
EVERYONE can participate, these programs are not reserved for the poor...even the RICHEST citizens also use these same programs. They arent income based. That is my point about a social program, its for EVERYONE.
My husband is swedish and grew up here, his family are well off and he used the same health care systems, the same day care systems, the same schools etc as lower incomed people in sweden do. The biggest difference for my husband is that he could have more luxuries because his family had more disposable income than some others.
The owners of H&M are swedish and they all live here. They use the same health care I do, their kids also have to have the grades to get into college here and if my son has better grades he would get the spot before their kid would....they would use the same daycares we all do and pay the same rates we all do. It dosent matter that they are very rich....all those services are there for them just as they are for me and even the person who makes less than me.
I never said the U.S. didn't have problems. We need to get rid of government and insurance interference. I'n afraid I must repeat that Sweden is adopting the free private market principles because they do work and they do apply to the health care industry.Well you are incorrect as the evidence shows. It is the US system that is choking and in crisis. Sweden pays less than the US does for health care. I have choice in my doctors, I am not limited there. I can choose whatever health facility I want and I am not restricted to ONLY go there nor am I restricted to a specific hospital either.
There isnt a competitive market in medical care in the US, there is a corrupt and predatory one. I must repeat that "free market principles" dont apply to the health care industry due to the fact that it is not a market that is dictated by supply demand formula.
Medicare is not for the poor but for everyone over age 65. Medicaid is for the poor. Both programs are going broke.Welfare programs like medicare and medicaid arent failed socialized medicine...if they were socialized then they would be servicing ALL citizens (and not JUST poor ones).
As I have stated and your examples illustrate rather well....programs that are designed specifically for the poor tend to be underfunded and the first thing we want to cut to save tax money. The poor are the most unheard group of all with the least amount of power as well. It is better to create programs that they have equal access to, so that they can also benefit from the quality systems we create for ourselves.
*btw, there are numerous parts of the swedish socialized system that are privatized but they are paid for their services by the govt and must adhere to the price schedules and standards of practice. A mixture between socialization and privatization is a good thing. This socialist nation is a mixture of both in many areas.
From what I understand the Swedish government is probably going to issue health vouchers next. That is better than most socialized medicine programs but you are still under the thumb of government control. You first pay the govt. money for your health care and then they "give" you your "free" health care. Right. That may be the system Sweden wants but in America it is not a moral solution.
If we get rid of excessive govt regulation and insurance company managed health care and go with HSAs, people can keep their own money and spend it for the health care of their choice. If you take good care of yourself so you don't need to use a lot of health care you could possibly build up hundreds of thousands in your pre-tax HSAs over the years if you invested well. Later in life it would easily pay for your catastrophic premiums and any routine care you had. And then you get to keep the rest and spend it anyway you choose or even pass it on to your kids.