Universal Healthcare?

[jreeves]

Certainly. I'll enlarge on it a bit. It's my contention that the abstract economic notions of the free market economy and the total command economy are both unworkable in practice. Any economy has to contain mixed elements to work effectively. That means that in reality nations which like to say they have free market economies or totally planned economies don't have them at all, it's a bit of self-delusion. You mentioned that "socialistic" economies will fail. I tend to agree that the total social ownership of the means of production has, where it's been tried to date, failed. But a socialist economy isn't identified by universal healthcare or social security, plenty of countries have those programmes but they're not socialist states.

Now, in your view, what's a socialist economy?

I lose you there??

 

[Diuretic]

Where 97% of the taxes in a country are paid by only 50% of the citizens.

That could be the problem, I use the definition of a socialist country to be one where the means of production are socially owned.

 

[Diuretic]

The largest exipenditure by government is social spending...

I'd say that would mark a failed state for sure, but that doesn't make it socialist.

 

[Diuretic]

I lose you there??

I think it's the definitional problem, as I indicated. I mean, anyone is free to chuck around the term "socialist" or "socialistic" or similar as a pejorative but it helps to indicate if it's just a slag-off term or it's being used as an agreed definition.

It makes me think of the first time I was getting ready to visit the US and I bought a guide book, like a Frommer's or something. I was reading about the cost of "entrees" in restaurants and nearly fainted. I didn't realise that in the US you use the term "entree" to mean what we call a "main course". Here we use the term "entree" to mean a form of appetiser course - no wonder I nearly freaked out

 

[jreeves]

That could be the problem, I use the definition of a socialist country to be one where the means of production are socially owned.

ˈsocialism noun

the belief or theory that a country's wealth (its land, mines, industries, railways etc) should belong to the people as a whole, not to private owners

If only 50% of the population is paying 97% of the income tax, tell me how that isn't the very definition....Socialist control a country's wealth through taxes and redistribution of income.

 

[Diuretic]

ˈsocialism noun

the belief or theory that a country's wealth (its land, mines, industries, railways etc) should belong to the people as a whole, not to private owners

If only 50% of the population is paying 97% of the income tax, tell me how that isn't the very definition....Socialist control a country's wealth through taxes and redistribution of income.

The first part of your post pretty much sums up my understanding of socialism as an economic theory. But the second part I'm struggling with. If half of the population is paying 97% of a country's income tax then I'd say that half of the population is on a bloody good earner But that's only a reference to the tax structures. It's not socialist simply because of a tax regime.

 

[Taomon]

You mean you hope it wouldn't be that way. Look around. Countries with socialized medicine aren't exactley running like clockwork or even close to it. The number one problem that most countries with some form of government run health care is waiting. As someone said earlier what you will essentially be douing is exchanging one set of problems for another. You will be exchanging convenience, responsiveness, and quality of care for affordability. And what good is cheap medicine if it's shitty medicine?

And what good is medicine that you cannot afford or is refused you because of lack of health coverage?

 

[mattskramer]

The largest exipenditure by government is social spending...

I doubted you for a moment but then I found this chart on how congress spends your money. The top 4 categories are Defense, Health & Human Services, Treasury (interest on debt), and Social Security:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Federal_spendings.png

 

[Diuretic]

I would have thought that social spending and defence are quite properly big ticket items for any government.

 

[mattskramer]

I doubted you for a moment but then I found this chart on how congress spends your money. The top 4 categories are Defense, Health & Human Services, Treasury (interest on debt), and Social Security:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Federal_spendings.png

I guess that the debt goes up each year no matter who is president. Notice that in 2004, it was just above 7 trillion. In 2007 it barely passed the 9 trillion dollar mark. Doesn’t the president sign off on spending bills and don’t Republicans say that they support cuts in spending and reducing the size of government? Oh well. I guess Dems and Repubs are not that different when it comes to this.

 

[Gurdari]

The debate about universal healthcare and so forth, as we all know, has been raging for several years now. To be quite frank, I'm still undecided and conflicted about where I stand on the issue. My question to the members of this forum is this: Is healthcare a right? And by "right," I don't mean the unalienable kind endowed by the creator, as articulated in the Declaration of Independence, but rather the kind defined by the laws of man. What do you think?

Maybe 'right' is the wrong word. Healthcare could be desirable if health of its citizens is important to a nation. As important as education/policing/emergency services/defense/infrastructure that are all 'socialized. In Canada, health is lumped into that group of desirables. In the US, politically not so. People who can afford private care that is the very best are the ones who tend to make policy and decision about it in the US I find. Not surprising there is little political will.

That marketcure video, or story seemed a bit bizarre, as if he was worried the US might fall victim to socialized medicine and end up like some Euro nations or Cuba (ironically all had enviable health care systems superior to the care average people get in America).

 

[jreeves]

I guess that the debt goes up each year no matter who is president. Notice that in 2004, it was just above 7 trillion. In 2007 it barely passed the 9 trillion dollar mark. Doesn’t the president sign off on spending bills and don’t Republicans say that they support cuts in spending and reducing the size of government? Oh well. I guess Dems and Repubs are not that different when it comes to this.

I'm not saying Bush is immune because he is Republican, he's not. He along with Congress has spent this country onto the brink of bankruptcy. If you read down a little further, on that same website, it will tell you Social Spending is the single largest expenditure by the government. That in my opinion is the largest area we can improve, since we have spent the most money there.

 

[CharlestonChad]

I'm not saying Bush is immune because he is Republican, he's not. He along with Congress has spent this country onto the brink of bankruptcy. If you read down a little further, on that same website, it will tell you Social Spending is the single largest expenditure by the government. That in my opinion is the largest area we can improve, since we have spent the most money there.

Every dime the government spends should be considered social spending. Remember, the government only exists to serve the society and make our lives better.


I think the excessive spending is due to a lack of accountability. I'd say 90% of this country thinks the government wastes money, but there really isn't much we can do about it since it's hard to pinpoint who's spending how much and for what. Obama proposed a system where the government has to make it's spending public information. I think it would increase competition on contracts, because people like Cheney can no longer get away with giving their buddies companies big $ contracts without any sort of competition.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Every dime the government spends should be considered social spending. Remember, the government only exists to serve the society and make our lives better.


I think the excessive spending is due to a lack of accountability. I'd say 90% of this country thinks the government wastes money, but there really isn't much we can do about it since it's hard to pinpoint who's spending how much and for what. Obama proposed a system where the government has to make it's spending public information. I think it would increase competition on contracts, because people like Cheney can no longer get away with giving their buddies companies big $ contracts without any sort of competition.

The Federal Government solely exists to ensure the individual States Get along, a unified voice is present for foreign diplomacy and policy and to provide for the Common defense. There is absolutely NO power or authority at the Federal level for ANY social programs AT ALL.

 

[midcan5]

The Federal Government solely exists to ensure the individual States Get along, a unified voice is present for foreign diplomacy and policy and to provide for the Common defense. There is absolutely NO power or authority at the Federal level for ANY social programs AT ALL.

That's your narrow minded conservative take on it and I think most would disagree, we the people for the united, not otherwise, states of America.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

 

[RetiredGySgt]

That's your narrow minded conservative take on it and I think most would disagree, we the people for the united, not otherwise, states of America.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

And yet you can not site a single granted power in the Constitution that allows any social program AT ALL. Other then claiming there is a "general welfare" clause that somehow supercedes the STATED LIMITED powers of the Federal Government in the document.

 

[Diuretic]

Maybe 'right' is the wrong word. Healthcare could be desirable if health of its citizens is important to a nation. As important as education/policing/emergency services/defense/infrastructure that are all 'socialized. In Canada, health is lumped into that group of desirables. In the US, politically not so. People who can afford private care that is the very best are the ones who tend to make policy and decision about it in the US I find. Not surprising there is little political will.

That marketcure video, or story seemed a bit bizarre, as if he was worried the US might fall victim to socialized medicine and end up like some Euro nations or Cuba (ironically all had enviable health care systems superior to the care average people get in America).

That sums up the issue nicely. It does depend on how healthcare is viewed by a society. If healthcare is seen as necessary for the general wellbeing of society then it will be made affordable (or free) to all. If healthcare is seen as just another commodity to be purchased then it won't be made affordable (or free) to all, proponents will call for the operation of market forces to regulate the supply and demand of the commodity called healthcare.

 

[Taomon]

That sums up the issue nicely. It does depend on how healthcare is viewed by a society. If healthcare is seen as necessary for the general wellbeing of society then it will be made affordable (or free) to all. If healthcare is seen as just another commodity to be purchased then it won't be made affordable (or free) to all, proponents will call for the operation of market forces to regulate the supply and demand of the commodity called healthcare.

Everything in America is a commodity; food clothing, shelter, medical care, health & well being, even religion. One of the reasons why solar energy is not being touted as a viable energy solution is that the sun cannot be a commodity, nor can the wind.

I just read an article in Scientific America that stated and proved that solar energy could completely replace nuclear and fossil fuels by 2035.

 

[Diuretic]

Everything in America is a commodity; food clothing, shelter, medical care, health & well being, even religion. One of the reasons why solar energy is not being touted as a viable energy solution is that the sun cannot be a commodity, nor can the wind.

I just read an article in Scientific America that stated and proved that solar energy could completely replace nuclear and fossil fuels by 2035.

In terms of the commodities you listed, it's nearly the same here (Australia). Medical care though has a special form as a commodity I think. Medical care is available to all who need it and if they can't pay for it then they'll get it anyway because it's seen as a basic necessity. In practice the system is more complex than that but that's the basic philosophy. The commonwealth government is the single payer for what might be called required health care but private insurance schemes are available for those who can afford them. Private health definitely makes life easier but it doesn't replace the required health care system.

In terms of renewable energy, we're starting to get serious about it but I think it will take a lot of commonwealth and state government work to create a viable renewable energy industry. When it happens though I expect it to still be a commodity as it is now. For example, my electricity supply is from wind power. It isn't cheaper for me but it's better than encouraging the burning of coal.

 

[jreeves]

Every dime the government spends should be considered social spending. Remember, the government only exists to serve the society and make our lives better.


I think the excessive spending is due to a lack of accountability. I'd say 90% of this country thinks the government wastes money, but there really isn't much we can do about it since it's hard to pinpoint who's spending how much and for what. Obama proposed a system where the government has to make it's spending public information. I think it would increase competition on contracts, because people like Cheney can no longer get away with giving their buddies companies big $ contracts without any sort of competition.

No, this is direct social service spending, for example dept. of health and human services. 680 billion dollars worth

www.federalbudget.com