Socialized versus Capitalism healthcare and social ideas?

[Joan.of.the.Arch]

Well said, Mjenn.

[frugalgirl]

Originally Posted by Joan.of.the.Arch

Well said, Mjenn.

Well said, indeed.

[maat55]

[quote]

Originally Posted by LivingAlmostLarge

Nope but if you are a constitutionalist you should believe in freedom of speech and freedom of one's belief's and ideals. Thus having the idea that healthcare is a right should be protected.

You're free to believe whatever you wish, where you are wrong is in forcing your idiology down my throat.

Did I say healthcare is a guarantee? Nope. Not done in this country. But can we believe it should be? Are other countries and people wrong? Nope, but you imply that it is. That people who believe it are idiots. Nevermind that the majority of people in industrialized countries believe it or there wouldn't be so much socialized medicine.

Most people do not have a clue as to what freedom means and how dangerous it is for a society to hand it over to a central government. The reason this country is in a major recession is due to the government attempting to promote home ownership in a way that was not condusive to natural market forces. Not everyone should own a home, nor should everyone be given healthcare outside of market forces.

Other countries pay much higher taxes to maintain their social programs which are still going bankrupt. Freedom and prosperity can not be provided by a government, nor more than the laws of gravity can be eliminated.

You like freedom of religion? Freedom to bear arms? Well I noticed in this country it's becoming more and and more intolerant in general. That if anyone has an ideal or belief opposite of someone else they are considered "ignorant and communist." And this cuts both ways with extreme liberals and conservatives.

As a conservative, I repect your right to your idiology. You are free to find like minded people and form your own socialist societies through voluntary membership. Where I have a problem with you is when you do not respect my right to my personal freedoms. I do not want your social programs, I consider them immoral and a detriment to freedom and prosperity. Yet, I do not have a problem with you exercising your idiology with others who agree with you.

I don't believe that the US has the best healthcare. I think that they have progressive healthcare for the cutting edge medicine. But preventative? Or routine medical care? Not by a long shot.

We all have our opinions.

Nor do I believe that people who want to cut SS and Medicare have an answer for not having these safety nets in place. I want to know what people propose? How will it really work? And if it were so simple to cut these safety nets then why didn't they? Because the people who depend on it the most aren't the rich but the poor and middle class.

I have a whole thread on this. BTW, how does your 401k work. How about qualified(government accepted) 401k's with an attached disability/term insurance?

Besides the point, I wonder if we closed the loopholes for handing down wealth in trusts, etc, what sort of taxes would be raised? If the rich weren't allowed to put everything into trust and avoid paying taxes while handing down wealth?

How about letting the poor grow nesteggs in private investments then pass them to their family or charities? Taking the first 12.4% of ones lower income is a huge roadblock to personal investing.

I mean the very wealthy, not the upper middle class. People who can afford to gift say $12k from each grandparent annually to a grandchild as a tax shelter and tax planning? Or "gifting" grandchild with a company now to avoid taxes at $50k/each?

It is their money, who are you to take it from them?

Are you in that category? I know I'm not. But the loopholes for the wealth is astounding. I read a blog where a woman gets a lot of money from her family and it's all tax free and they carefully plan all the "gift" so the IRS doesn't get the family money. Now will average joe get this same tax planning? I doubt it.

Since when is taxation patriotic? A Constitutional government has far less need for revenues. A socialist government will never have enough.

[maat55]

[quote]

Originally Posted by elessar78

maat, even in the most basic and primal form of government (tribal) and it's been studied by anthropologists is that redistribution of wealth is a primary function of a governing body. The differences occur only in whom the collected wealth of a group is redistributed to. Is it redistributed to a few (aristocracy) or the many (the populace).

In a free market, there is no redistribution. Some people earn more, but they are not taking from anyone. Where wealth disparity occurs is in how individuals manage their assets. Another factor is how intrusive the government is. There are legitimate government duties and ones that are a detriment to society.

Taking 12.4% of ones income inhibits personal wealth building. The government has chosen to usurp power from the individual for their so called good, yet provide them only a poverty level retirement plan. A good alternative is mandated private investments.

"Medical care for those who can afford it" is just as valid an ideaology as "Medical care for all."

Market forces and charity will provide the lowest price possible. I am willing to compromise for the CHIP program.

I think the ideal situation, as been mentioned, is the hybrid: Broadly available, high quality medical care that is inexpensive for everyone.

No government can provide this.

High quality care exists in the US. I think a vast majority have access to it, albeit cost becomes a barrier.

We have many services and comodities of high quality and at low prices, all of which adhere to market forces. Treat flat screen tv's like healthcare, and you will see them become to costly.

I think I head the leading cause of bankruptcy filings is medical costs.

This is largely due to people having access without prioritizing it in their financial plans. Noone wants to trade that boat, new car, dinners out, smoking habit or over-sized house for a health plan. If you get the government out of healthcare, they will have to give it priority.

No one in the free market benefits from people filing bankruptcy. Creditors don't get their money and the productivity of those that file, plummets. Not to mention, the indirect effect that sick people need care so family may have to leave the work force to care or redirect financial resources to care for loved ones.

It's funny how anything you owe the government is not bankruptable, I guess they need their money, yet we in the private sector must not. IMO, healthcare should not be bankruptable.

I support healthcare reform not because I'm an idealist that ONLY believes that everyone should have access but I think it makes long-term financial sense. The current system is unsustainable. It's not just the lazy and unemployed who don't have access, many middle class workers are being priced out of medical care. We have an aging population that will need a tremendous amount of medical care-what happens when the system can't support their medical care? We let them get sick and die?

You have to let the free market work. Healthcare like higher eduation and the former housing bubble are all products of government intrusion. People have to be motivated to provide for themselves. Prices will come down under free market forces. If the government were to proclaim 3k sf houses a right, they would skyrocket in price. It is one thing to want or need something, yet another to produce it.

Sure, many have underfunded retirement accounts. So this is where it gets murky for me. Also, do we need to support those with self-inflicted medical conditions? Heart disease, obesity, diabetes,lung cancer?

Most are underfunded due to lack of investment funds(12.4% taken by government) and lack of urgency to save(caused by safety nets).

I have no obligion to anyone, everyone is dying of something.

For me, pragmatism trumps idealism. We need to maintain people's health because it's cheaper than curing them.

How about letting people die of natural causes in a society that has access to free market health inhancement? 200 years ago, people lived and died. If you want to live to 100, prioritze healthcare, it is a nice product for those who wish to live longer. People are confused at which is more important, freewill or government dominance.

[rj.phila]

[quote=maat55;290809]

A Constitutional government has far less need for revenues. A socialist government will never have enough.

ideology is pointless if it has no real world application.

i'd like to know: how much taxation is constitutionalist, in your opinion? give me a number. 2%? 5%? 10%? flat, progressive? not "less than we have now". i know what our tax code looks like now, google will tell all. and on the flip side, same thing- you speak of socialism; how much taxation is socialist? again, a number, not "infinite". lets talk real numbers here. not "we're close", or "more".

im being serious here. if we can't talk real numbers, then we are just having a discussion about (pointless) ideologies, not applicable concepts or proposals of governing.

[elessar78]

Maat,

I tried responding to your post, but in the end we're not going to convince each other.

Respectfully, I wouldn't want to live in your vision of America.

[maat55]

[quote]

Originally Posted by elessar78

Maat,

I tried responding to your post, but in the end we're not going to convince each other.

True.

Res

pectfully, I wouldn't want to live in your vision of America.

Nor I in yours, yet I am not forcing you to live in mine. I did not leave my parents so that I could be forcefully coddled by an unconstitutional government.

[maat55]

[quote]

Originally Posted by Mjenn

I struggle with the idea of a 'constitutionalist.' I don't think anyone here in this thread thinks the constitution is a bad thing, nor that their ideas are in contrast with the constitution. I think we are in danger here, of turning the constitution into something akin to the bible - the belief that there is only one interpretation and that is mine and that is correct.

The Constitution is very simple in its intention. I was established to unify the states for national needs, while not letting the federal government usurp power from the states and individuals. Slavery was a national issue, due to its neglect of liberty to humans. The only reason it was not abolished in 1789 was due to it would have impeaded the ratification of the Constitution. Slavery was a legitimate general welfare issue.

But like with gravity or personal finance fundamentals, the Constitution has its specific limits of power. It was never intentioned to grow the government into a socialist one, it in fact was to prohibit this.

For many years, we have witnesses the destruction of the Constitution through an idiological battle between conservatism and liberalism. Many of the issues involved were intentioned to be decided by each state and not that of the federal government.

I for one do hope that in our modern day society, food, water and health care should be basic rights. I don't want to enjoy my food, water and healthcare while watching my neighbors or even my neighbors neighbors starve to death in the streets. Even if they are lazy. I don't. I do want to live in a society that feels that it is it's duty to make sure that doesn't happen. That is why I place my vote towards the candidate that I feel best aligns with my ideals - and you with yours.

As an conservative, I do not want to see people starve either. But, this and many other issues are not dependent on a federal government programs. In many cases, these programs only promote dependency and abuse.

Why is it that many welfare families are broken families?
Why is it that federal housing has led to the destruction of housing projects?

There is a right way to help and a wrong way to help. I do not believe federal programs are a legitimate answer to these issues. So, why should I be forced to participate? Why should I be forced to participate in funding for abortions? You claim to be against the death penalty, how about human life in the womb?

This is why it is improper to have the federal government do anything outside of national needs. Abortion, welfare, universal healthcare and gay marraige should be state issues. If you want to live in a state with universal healthcare, move to one. American should be free to experiment on a state level, without forcing a whole nation into any idiology.

[LivingAlmostLarge]

Perhaps. But then they shouldn't redistribute wealth federally maat. I live in a HIGH tax paying state because people make a lot of money. So my federal taxes should solely go to my state and redistributed to the poor there. I don't want it going to another state's poor if we have to choose our state. My 25% bracket goes to help my neighbors who believe the same thing I do, if it were that simple. I'll pay a flat say 5% to military, but otherwise why not let all taxes go to the states? Probably because poorer states who get lots of FEDERAL taxes (you can see the tax table of wealth redistribution) goes from the the coasts inland.

What would happen if we did away with the child tax credit? Standard deduction etc? It would hurt more of the people who are middle class than the rich.

Did you see the post about keyesian economics by Paul Krugman? People are stupid so theory of perfect markets doesn't exist. LOL. Turns out to be true. How Did Economists Get It So Wrong? - NYTimes.com He also wrote the conscience of the a liberal chapter on socialized healthcare. It was interesting. That healthcare can't be free market because it will never behave like it should. Too much emotions and personal involvement for it to be a free market commodity.

[maat55]

I agree, it is rediculous for California to recieve only 77 cents for every dollar it sends to Washington. Not to mention the fact that California is forced to support a large illegal population using its welfare system. I personally, am ashamed that my state is considered a welfare state(i'm guessing due to indian treaties).

Our tax system is a mess. We should have either a flat tax or The Fair Tax, which would liminate all these rediculous deductions and credits. IMO, The Fair Tax would be more poor friendly. We waste far too much money and wealth production(producing of goods as apposed to counting jumping beans) on needless tax compliance.

Did you see the post about keyesian economics by Paul Krugman? People are stupid so theory of perfect markets doesn't exist. LOL. Turns out to be true. How Did Economists Get It So Wrong? - NYTimes.com He also wrote the conscience of the a liberal chapter on socialized healthcare. It was interesting. That healthcare can't be free market because it will never behave like it should. Too much emotions and personal involvement for it to be a free market commodity.

I would agree that emotions and government entitlements and expectations are preventing market forces from working. Yet, socialized healthcare systems create just downsize product in order to discourage participation. What is unfair, is that busy people in a socialist system will get less provision than they with time on their hands. Many people will not want to take off a whole day to wait at an clinic, yet they without jobs, have more time on their hands.

I like our system because I can choose from many doctors and get quicker service. Once people become convinced they are entitled to something, you destroy the market forces that make it affordable. This mentality has built a large higher ed bubble and burst a housing bubble, healthcare is not far behind.

[Mjenn]

I promised myself that I would not engage in this thread anymore, but yet here I am.

I get the whole 'small government' argument. I really do. I don't agree, but I get it. But lets not base it on falsehoods.

I highly recommend, Maat, that you take a few trips, to a few other countries in the world. I'm not saying it should/will change your mind. But it might give your arguments a little better standing.

I've lived in 3 countries with national healthcare - so I have to respond to what you have written here:

would agree that emotions and government entitlements and expectations are preventing market forces from working. Yet, socialized healthcare systems create just downsize product in order to discourage participation. What is unfair, is that busy people in a socialist system will get less provision than they with time on their hands. Many people will not want to take off a whole day to wait at an clinic, yet they without jobs, have more time on their hands.

National Health Care - does not equal Communist Russia. Over the last 10 years I have never sat around waiting in a doctor's office for longer than 30 minutes. Except for the emergency room visit I mentioned earlier.

I will only speak for Scandinavia now, since systems change swiftly, but here 'social' health care works pretty much like American.

I feel sick. I call the doctor's office. Usually I leave a message and they call me back within 15 minutes - anytime during opening hours, which are 8am - 7pm. They make an appointment for me. Usually the same day. I go to the appointment. The doctor diagnoses me or refers me to a specialist.

The only time I have ever had to wait in the office was when I went to drop-in hours. Then I waited 20 minutes.

I can also book a time at my doctor via the internet.

I can choose which Doctor I want to see. I can choose my local state run clinic. Or I can choose any state-run clinic. I can also choose any private doctor. The private doctor is still paid by the state. The private doctor can choose to have a higher co-pay. But most don't - because they want to compete with state providers.

I choose one main provider - if I see that provider I have a 10 dollar co-pay. I can also see any other provider at any time but then I have to pay a 20 dollar co-pay. If my medical bills, including medicine and co-pays total more than 150 dollars, then all other medicine and doctor's visits are free.

Now it is true there are waits in the system where I live. The system is not perfect and it needs work. Certainly. There are waits are for non-emergency surgery that is not elective. In my personal experience I know two people who needed eye surgery and one person that needed surgery for carpal tunnel that had to wait for their surgery.
In our region, if you have to wait more than 3 months for non-emergency surgery, you have a right to go anywhere else that will conduct the surgery and have it paid for. This means you can go to other European countries, or to other regions of this country. My region will foot the bill. This means most non-emergency surgery is carried out in 3 months.

The three month rule does not apply to elective surgery that is paid for by National Health Care like IVF and gastric bypass.

During this time, yes, your employer might suffer. Your sick leave is paid for by the state - but obviously you cannot do your job.

Again, not a perfect system. Which is why I think if you have a combination of the US & European system you would really have a model to be envied.

But the Scand. philosophy is this: You should not be entitled to better health care just because you are wealthy. Everyone has the right to be treated with the best medical care possible irregardless of their means.

[shanecurran]

I am all for socialized health care. I think most people in the states like to say our system is better than abroad. One way to reduce the number of people getting unnecessary check ups is to have a small copay.

[maat55]

Originally Posted by shanecurran

I am all for socialized health care. I think most people in the states like to say our system is better than abroad. One way to reduce the number of people getting unnecessary check ups is to have a small copay.

Small copays encourage over use and promote insurance company profits.

The free market solution is to have the least insurance possible and pay for small emergencies and doctor visits out of pocket. If people were to save the additionals funds saved by not over insuring, they would have plenty of funds for small bills and save large sums for their later years. When people pay out of pocket, they will be more frugal in their healthcare choices.

[snafu]

maat55, I conclude you have not yet suffered a life threatening illness. Statistically it is likely you will have to cope with the system that requires clearance from an insurance clerk before the medical expert can proceed with care. When you are seriously ill, perhaps recovering from serious surgery, you will learn your carrier has declined to pay for your procedure. You will not enjoy having to make innumerable calls, e-mails, trying to sort out details 1st to determine the glitch, 2nd to get corrections made which is ever more difficult since you never ever are able to talk to the same person twice. Just when you think it's sorted...it all goes wrong again.

The problem I disliked the most was being told a loved one has used up his $6 million medical plan and there is nothing further to be done. We could never confirm there was no more treatment due to severity of illness or lack of $$$$$$$$.

[LivingAlmostLarge]

Maat, I never said to protect healthcare. I said my right to believe that healthcare is a right. You wrote you can't get that. Well I believe it and I have a right to think that way. I did not say you had to, nor did I say that you had be on board. Just that I am entitled in the US to my own opinion.

I see your argument as valid. I don't think it could work because people don't save for retirement now, what makes you think they would save for their health? I am about to post a link to a blog about people in foreclosure. They knowingly stopped paying in October and were evicted in April. So they did it willingly and stayed there so they could be "smart" with their money.

So what happens to people working that system? Don't bother saving for medical care, then go BK (easy when you are middle class/working poor), and then who takes care of them in a pay your own system?

Do we let them die? If medical care is based on who can pay, what if people choose not to save because they figure "I can't afford it anyway...let me die." And trust me I BET A LOT of people will act this way.