What's So Bad About Socialism Anyway?

[Anonymous]

The TVA is a socialistic endeavor and it is one of the most successful programs in the history of this country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

This is an area of honest disagreement between liberals and conservatives, and why the choice between liberal ideology (Obama) and conservative views (McCain) makes this such an easy choice for me. Unfortunately, lost in the charges of racism and terrorism is the starkly real choice between the two. Canada's health care? No thanks, I'll take our system with it warts over theirs.

I think anybody with health insurance would probably prefer to keep what they have versus a government-run system. The problem is the 45 million people in this country who don't have any health care at all (it's probably more like 47 million, but let's be conservative). The private sector has had many decades to figure out how to solve this, but hasn't. This "wart" isn't too big for you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As someone who works in healthcare and has to fight for coverage for life-saving medications their doctor thinks is right for them or their patient goes without; I hate our current health care system for that.

So, you don't mind killing off some people early for the greater good? That's what they do in Europe. Many of the newer cancer drugs which have proven successful here are not widely available in Europe because of the cost associated with them. I guess the government figures that a person with Stage IV cancer is going to die anyway so why buy them another 10-12 months? This is a FACT. I know, because my Dad died of cancer and I spent about 14 months researching medicines and corresponding with other cancer victims, including patients in Europe. If my Dad had lived in the U.K., he would have died about a year earlier without the lifesaving treatments he received here.

I'm all for a greater safety net to help the poor and I do wish there was more preventative medicine in this country but I do not want to be forced into a government run system. Socialist medicine is great unless you get very sick. Many Europeans also carry private insurance.

[Anonymous]

I don't think anyone is saying that all the healthcare should be funded by the goverment. In fact, I think public health clinics for routinely check ups should be available everywhere - and regional public hospitals as well.

To get care in a public health clinic in urban areas, most people must go to the line at 2am... so, it is not a "breeze". Anyone that can afford would still prefer to pay for private health insurance.

In case someone that has health insurance is taken to a public hospital, the private insurance should be charged.

I just think everyone has the right to at least minimum health care... I think is one of those basic human rights, along with public education.

The reality is that not all jobs offer health insurance, and usually the ones that do not offer it are already low paying, so the person cannot afford it by himself. It is a vicious cycle.

[Anonymous]

I saw this today elsewhere: what exactly is our system, now that government is saving big banks but not ordinary people? Communism? Socialism? Doesn't fit neatly into either of these....

[Anonymous]

I believe the technical term for your current form of government is a "kleptocracy".
Luckily you have the chance to change that in a few weeks' time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who works in healthcare and has to fight for coverage for life-saving medications their doctor thinks is right for them or their patient goes without; I hate our current health care system for that.

So, you don't mind killing off some people early for the greater good? That's what they do in Europe. Many of the newer cancer drugs which have proven successful here are not widely available in Europe because of the cost associated with them. I guess the government figures that a person with Stage IV cancer is going to die anyway so why buy them another 10-12 months? This is a FACT. I know, because my Dad died of cancer and I spent about 14 months researching medicines and corresponding with other cancer victims, including patients in Europe. If my Dad had lived in the U.K., he would have died about a year earlier without the lifesaving treatments he received here.

I'm all for a greater safety net to help the poor and I do wish there was more preventative medicine in this country but I do not want to be forced into a government run system. Socialist medicine is great unless you get very sick. Many Europeans also carry private insurance.

PP, I understand your point and your concern about people like your dad. (Condolences on losing your father) But the point is that people are dying now for the "greater good." The health care system we have now also means that some people don't get the care they should and will die younger. So you're also making a choice about who will die younger. The thing you have to decide is what kind of tradeoff you're willing to make. I think you're comfortable with yours and I'm fine with that. Just don't pretend to yourself that people aren't dying younger because of the current system that you prefer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is an area of honest disagreement between liberals and conservatives, and why the choice between liberal ideology (Obama) and conservative views (McCain) makes this such an easy choice for me. Unfortunately, lost in the charges of racism and terrorism is the starkly real choice between the two. Canada's health care? No thanks, I'll take our system with it warts over theirs.

I think anybody with health insurance would probably prefer to keep what they have versus a government-run system. The problem is the 45 million people in this country who don't have any health care at all (it's probably more like 47 million, but let's be conservative). The private sector has had many decades to figure out how to solve this, but hasn't. This "wart" isn't too big for you?

What if people with tat good health care insurance get laid off, and can't find a new job? Can't find a full-time job with benefits? Can't find a job with benefits and affordable coverage ... because they have a so-called "pre-existing condition"? Or run out of benefits because they hit their limit with one very expensive condition?

At least some people who currently have health care insurance might care about having universal coverage just because they know that they can ose their coverage at any time, through no fault of their own.

Then, there are some people who would like to leave their jobs, maybe work half time or even stay home and care for the kids or an elderly parent... and they have the money to do it, but their job is the one that comes with health care benefits that are affordable (spouse maybe is self-employed or works for a company that does not offer health benefits.) Having universal coverage would help those people as well.

[Anonymous]

In this country you are always only a couple of spells of bad luck away from disaster. This certainly sharpens the incentives to make money, but it exacts a real psychological toll.

[Anonymous]

PP, I understand your point and your concern about people like your dad. (Condolences on losing your father) But the point is that people are dying now for the "greater good." The health care system we have now also means that some people don't get the care they should and will die younger. So you're also making a choice about who will die younger. The thing you have to decide is what kind of tradeoff you're willing to make. I think you're comfortable with yours and I'm fine with that. Just don't pretend to yourself that people aren't dying younger because of the current system that you prefer.

I am friends with a young man who has cancer and AIDS and is on medicaid. He is receiving the latest and best treatments by the best doctors in this area for both his cancer and his HIV infection. If you are truly destitute, despite what you may believe, you will be taken care of in this country.

Most insurance companies will cover most patients for needed procedures. I have crappy insurance and I've managed to get my bills paid after writing letters, etc. You may have to argue with your insurance, but ultimately they will cover you. If they didn't, they wouldn't be able to afford to stay in business due to lawsuits.

At least here in the U.S. you have the chance to get the drugs you need. How will you like it if the government had approved drugs but decided not to make them available to you? As for people dying younger, don't fool yourself. You don't think that some people in Europe are also dying at younger ages because they can't get the care they need or because they have to wait forever to get an appointment with a doctor because the government system is completely overwhelmed? Why do you think Canadians and Europeans often seek care in other countries for serious health problems?

As I said, I am all for a greater safety net and I do think there needs to be some improvements to our current system, but I will take it any day over socialized medicine.

None of this really matters anyway because there isn't going to be any money to pay for a government run health care system.

[Anonymous]

Socialism aside, I think when people envision "National Healthcare" they have this vision of the best, most efficient, plenty of treatment and coverage, type of healthcare. Instead, it will be lowest common denominator. It's not going to be some fabulous free for all where you get great service and everything covered. Does anyone here belong to an HMO? My guess is that most of you don't -- because people who have the choice most often choose *better quality* healthcare. I belong to an HMO (Kaiser), which my peers tend to scoff at. No one wants to belong to an HMO because we all know you get crappy service, no one knows you, they always want to treat you as minimally as possible, etc. etc. I am reasonably satisfied with Kaiser because I actually have the cash to pay for the kind of health care I want - such as out-of-pocket maternity services, Chiropractic, etc - and my need for true medical care is extremely low.

But my question is, do you REALLY think healthcare run by the *government* is going to somehow be BETTER?! It will be like the worst HMO around. And, the truth is that the people in our country who truly have no way to get medical care, can receive it in worst case scenarios. It's not like we don't have any protection for people without healthcare. I agree with the PP's who remind us that people from around the world, from countries that do have nationalized healthcare, come to the US to seek medical services when their systems fail them. Inevitably, healthcare run by the government will = mediocrity. Why? Because the government does not produce the best and the brightest or those with great drive and ambition. It just doesn't.

[Anonymous]

So I'm curious to know who you think should educate our children, provide sewage, fix the roads which in my opinion are public goods.

Well, as it stands many of us pay for private entities to educate our children; certainly the government wins no accolades in the education department! We do pay for a private company to take care of our sewage. As for fixing our roads, I would be perfectly happy paying a private company to do this as well. Lower my taxes and let me pay out of pocket for a company who is interested in earning the business of my community to fix my local roads -- and I'm sure the roads would be in much better condition if this were the case.

My opinion - government should be profoundly limited and extremely balanced in power. Most things get done better when they are privatized. And the government works best when our elected officials understand their roles as public servants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

PP, I understand your point and your concern about people like your dad. (Condolences on losing your father) But the point is that people are dying now for the "greater good." The health care system we have now also means that some people don't get the care they should and will die younger. So you're also making a choice about who will die younger. The thing you have to decide is what kind of tradeoff you're willing to make. I think you're comfortable with yours and I'm fine with that. Just don't pretend to yourself that people aren't dying younger because of the current system that you prefer.

I am friends with a young man who has cancer and AIDS and is on medicaid. He is receiving the latest and best treatments by the best doctors in this area for both his cancer and his HIV infection. If you are truly destitute, despite what you may believe, you will be taken care of in this country.

Most insurance companies will cover most patients for needed procedures. I have crappy insurance and I've managed to get my bills paid after writing letters, etc. You may have to argue with your insurance, but ultimately they will cover you. If they didn't, they wouldn't be able to afford to stay in business due to lawsuits.

At least here in the U.S. you have the chance to get the drugs you need. How will you like it if the government had approved drugs but decided not to make them available to you? As for people dying younger, don't fool yourself. You don't think that some people in Europe are also dying at younger ages because they can't get the care they need or because they have to wait forever to get an appointment with a doctor because the government system is completely overwhelmed? Why do you think Canadians and Europeans often seek care in other countries for serious health problems?

As I said, I am all for a greater safety net and I do think there needs to be some improvements to our current system, but I will take it any day over socialized medicine.

None of this really matters anyway because there isn't going to be any money to pay for a government run health care system.

I'm not fooling myself. I understand that any solution will have drawbacks and I'm willing to go with that one. I just wanted you to acknowledge that your preferred system also has drawbacks. It all boils down to what negatives we're willing to accept in order to get the positives we seek.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

So I'm curious to know who you think should educate our children, provide sewage, fix the roads which in my opinion are public goods.

Well, as it stands many of us pay for private entities to educate our children; certainly the government wins no accolades in the education department! We do pay for a private company to take care of our sewage. As for fixing our roads, I would be perfectly happy paying a private company to do this as well. Lower my taxes and let me pay out of pocket for a company who is interested in earning the business of my community to fix my local roads -- and I'm sure the roads would be in much better condition if this were the case.

My opinion - government should be profoundly limited and extremely balanced in power. Most things get done better when they are privatized. And the government works best when our elected officials understand their roles as public servants.

So they don't use the public sewer lines or the public sewage plant? Interesting. How do they work that?

[Anonymous]

For those who think nationalized medicine sounds okay, you need to go live in a country that has it for a while. I did, and was appalled at the typical healthcare I received. Need to see a specialist? Six month wait. You have bronchitis? You only get five days of amoxicillan - that's all we're allowed to give you at one time. I could go on..... Government bureaucracy in medicine leads to substandard healthcare. You could even go further, and argue that it costs lives.