Socialism, or anything resembling it, is bad. Why?

[OconRecon]

Recently started thread on the old board.

 

VaporTrail:

I'm not as far left as my initial posts here may lead you to think i am. But anywho, I have a question for you guys that I'd like you to answer as completely as possible (and ya know what, shep, can you answer too?).

Why is socialism such a bad word? I mean, I think if health insurance was socialized a bit, it wouldn't hurt. But I'd like to hear your guys thoughts on it. I really don't know too much about domestic issues, most of my domain of knowledge lies in the international relations (like iraq and afghanistan).

 

Shepwrite:

I don't think Socialism is a bad word.

 

The McCain camp isn't throwing it around at econ brainiacs... they're aiming it at people who don't own stock, let alone know what "socialism" is.

 

America lies somewhere between socialism (taxed a lot, lots of government programs, like France) and true free market capitalism... which really doesn't work, as even Greenspan knows. We've been that way for a very, very long time now.

 

Keep in mind that before FDR, back in the depression, people who lost their jobs didn't have anything to fall back on. They lost their homes and their kids went hungry. They became hobos. That sucks.

 

To me, it's tough to figure out how that's okay and socialism is really scary. I don't get it.

 

That said, Obama's economic plan is pretty meat and potatoes progressive taxation along the lines of Clinton, who presided over an eight year fiscal Christmas in America where nobody took away anybody's personal freedom or claimed community ownership of their property (referencing the esteemed Ms. Sarah Palin).

 

Honestly, it's nothing that the REAL John McCain wouldn't support. The John McCain who let Obama dictate his campaign is another matter.

 

OconRecon:

In socialist and left Canada:

 

-I don't know about other professions, but my profession pays about 25%-50% more than it does here.

 

-They have plenty of hunting and guns

 

-They have no problem drilling for oil as long as its financially feasable (some of it is under mountains). Just over the border in North Dakota, they're drilling like crazy.

 

-They're as free as we are.

 

 

Now, regarding their health care, everyone gets the same BUT, you have to wait for care. Something us Americans will have no patience for. I have a friend who hurt her knee, probably has a torn meniscus, and now needs and MRI. The wait time? 20 months. In this country, we don't want to wait a week.

[osusev]

Its not bad concept, its been around since tribal development. The negative connatation that americans typically associate it with is a form of it... COMMUNISM.

 

There are many diverse applications and ideas on execution of it principle theory. The crap going on right now with the Republican fear and smear campaign is using the term as a slur without really defining the concept. The majority of the population does not understand what the principle is and is reacting toward it negatively because of the context the Republicans have framed it in.

 

We already practice socialism in different aspects with welfare, medicaid, social security, tax credits, etc. People just dont understand or associate those with the negative/communism type linking with the term as it is used by the politicians right now.

[Guest Aloysius]

Ocon, part of the reason there are longer waiting times in Canada is that they pay less for their health care. While we spend about 15.2% of our GDP on health care, Canada only spends 9.9%. Though Americans definitely wouldn't be pleased with Canada-style rationing of care, it's not clear that they'd need to go that direction if current spending levels aren't going to decline. For instance, Japan has a gov't-run health care system, but they don't have any of the MRI-waiting issues that Canada has because the Japanese value high-tech medical care (IIRC, Japan has the highest number of MRI machines per capita of any country).

 

So if we went in a more single-payer direction, I'd imagine that we'd be able to escape some of the problems the antiquated systems in Canada & Britain have. I'm not for single-payer, but I don't see waiting times as the primary reason to be against it.

 

And on the free market vs. socialism question, I'd say that the reason socialism has gotten a bad rap isn't just because it's been associated with communism: it's because markets generally work better than top-down government decision-making.

 

However, the problem is that some people on the right conflate supporting a free market with opposing any gov't intervention in the market. Any effort to curb pollution, regulate financial markets, etc. becomes an example of "socialism". While sensible people on the left & right can disagree on policy, they generally agree that markets work pretty darn well, though the government needs to step in when externalities, monopolies, or other market failures endanger the system.

 

Twenty years ago, conservative Democrats like Scoop Jackson were calling for the nationalization of our oil industry & a government-run health care system. Nowadays, the big idea in Democratic policy circles - a health care mandate - actually attempts to use market mechanisms to drive down the cost of health insurance. And Toop likes to bring up Obama adviser Jason Furman's health care proposal, which is even more of a market-based approach to health care.

 

Though the financial meltdown may prevent politicians from singing the praises of the free market, I don't think we're never going to go back to seeing socialism as an ideal. So tarring Democrats as socialists just doesn't seem to make any sense.

[osusev]

Come on Aloy you honestly think our general population links the negative connatation with free market principles being superior to complete top dow government owned socialistic systems like communism? You are giving the general population WAY too much credit. Britney spears was a dominant headline for how long?

 

McCarthy was not that long ago and neither was the fall of the soviet union and the red nuclear scare of the 1980's. You really dont see the link between America vs the soviet union and it connection with what most average americans equate socialism to and how the republicans are using it as negative fear term?

[Guest Aloysius]

Come on Aloy you honestly think our general population links the negative connatation with free market principles being superior to complete top dow government owned socialistic systems like communism?

What I was trying to say is that I think it's both. For the general population, you're right that the socialism/communism thing works for the Republicans.

 

However, on the elite level, there definitely has been a shift towards market-oriented solutions to economic problems. That's why I was trying to get at with the Scoop Jackson example; no longer is anyone with Jackson's stature advocating the nationalization of the oil industry.

 

And though we may have gone too far in the laissez-faire direction on regulatory issues, I don't think the broader pro-market approach is such a bad thing.

[OconRecon]

A well written response Aloy. Good to hear of Japan. Didn't know that fact.

 

The Canadians, and most of them will never admit it as the government markets the "same care for all" concept hard, have a two-tiered system. A large % of their population lives within a reasonable drive of the U.S. Therefore, you can always drive to Detroit to get the gall bladder removed. It's almost like having an HSA on top of your gov't plan.

 

Ex. - You're diagnosed with gall stones, and although in daily pain, you're not considered to be emergently sick. Your labs show normal liver/gall bladder/pancreas enzymes and the white blood cells are not elevated, thus no acute infection is identified. However, this daily pain is no picnic and a 4-6 month wait sounds tough. You drive down to Detroit, or any area with a plentiful concentration of surgeons, go to one of our plush physician-owned surgical centers and pay $3500 cash. Boom. Two-tiered with everyone getting the same baseline care and America is available for those who can afford it.

 

As you may know, a Canadian physician cannot participate in gov't healthcare AND take cash/other form of insurance.

 

Personally, I like two-tiered. Everyone should have a certain level of health care. And for those who want to save or do an HSA for a rainy day, it should be available.

 

Incidentally, I've asked my Canadian friends how in the world the people up there tolerate it. Their response is "well, Canadians are passive, like sheep, compared to you Americans".

[Guest Aloysius]

That's an interesting point about well-to-do Canadians heading south for their non-urgent medical care. IIRC, there's a similar phenomenon going on in Europe, where Brits head to France to receive their medical care.

 

I wonder if Canadians & Brits would revolt against their current systems if there weren't a secondary outlet for medical care. I bet they'd overcome their sheep-like passivity if they couldn't get those gall stones removed.

[cmac12]

The reason the word socialism works well in the United States is that to most people it simply means Governement control to most people. It means the Governement not you get to decide what is best for you. That may not be how it actually works but that is how people see it.

 

I am of course for the least amount of governement involvement as possible. But, there does have to be some control and regulation. I can understand regualation to stop preditory companies from taking advantage of people. Like the investment industry has. The governement regulates the industry but does not own the industry. That is the place of the governement to me. Not to provide but to regulate.

 

As far as health care goes. Unfortunantly I am not a verse in this subject as most. My issue with providing mandated health care is the cost and how are you going to pay for it. I actually agree that there should be free health care of some sort for regular check ups and preventative medicine. This would elimante alot of needless illness that the people end up paying more for in the long run.

 

But, if you provide preventative health care I think it should be up to the individual to provied their own high deductable health care. I just don't have any confidence that the governement can provide anything at a resonable cost. The more levels of governement you have the more it costs. which is why I am for state provided health care.

 

Here in Oregon we have something called the Oregon Health Plan. It is basically free insurance for the low middle class with kids and the poor. It works pretty well and the cost is basically not noticed by the tax payer. We are taxed to pay for it but it is not too high for what it offers. There are issues with it, but my point is that it is more affordable because it is a state program.

 

My view is that if the governement needs to provide that it needs to be provided at the state level. I just think that a state is better able to determine what they need than a federal governement. I don't want NY ideals forced on me any more than NY wants mine forced on them. In addition the cost of anything in NY is greateer than the cost in Oregon. If I am going to pay for something I would rather pay for it locally.

 

The federal governement has far too big of a role in our lives. Maybe you can convice me that governement needs a bigger role, but if it does it should be local and not federal.

 

What scares me about socialism is the tax consiquences and governement involvement at the federal level. I want to be rewarded for working hard. I do agree that we do have forms of socialism already in our governement, and truth be told I think those programs need to be revamped. Not necessarly removed but need to be revamp. Escpecially welfare.

 

By the way I changed name from justheretohelp. I feel more part of the board so I am not just here anymore.

[Guest Aloysius]

Obama's individual mandate is only for children, which makes sense both morally and practically. Obviously, these kids shouldn't develop chronic, preventable illnesses because their parents didn't purchase insurance for them. And because children are generally cheaper to cover, it's a more readily-attainable goal.

 

And I agree, cmac, that it'd be a good thing to have health care innovation start at the state level. For instance, it's good that economists & political scientists got to see how the Massachusetts health care mandate worked before taking it to other states (or even the federal level). That way, the states serve as "laboratories of democracy" whereby new policies are enacted, rehashed, and turned into even better solutions.

 

That's part of the reason why McCain's health care plan worries me. A key plank in his proposal is to turn the health care market into a national market, which effectively means that Oregon couldn't require insurance companies to do things like have open application periods or cover preexisting conditions.

 

While that may drop the cost of health insurance for healthy people, I worry about how it'll affect those who need health care the most, i.e. those who are already sick.

[DieHardBrownsFan]

Japan has an excellent Health Care system. My wife is Japanese and she always tells me how much better the system is there. We now fall under TRICARE since I am retired from the Navy which is also a very good system, at least so far.

[Guest Aloysius]

Yeah. Japan and, to a lesser extent, France are the examples single-payer advocates give when they want to show how their preferred system can actually work effectively.

 

I looked up the MRI statistics that I mentioned before, and they're pretty interesting. At the low end, you have Canada & the UK, which have 2.5 and 3.9 MRI's per million people, respectively.

 

In the middle, you have the US, with 8.1 MRI's per mil.

 

And then way at the top you have Japan, with 23.2 MRI's per million.

 

Obviously, the number of MRI's isn't the sole determinant of how good a health care system is, but it does signal that you can have a national health care system without having to ration expensive diagnostic tests & procedures.

[OconRecon]

Man that's a lot of MRI's in Japan.

 

The main thing that concerns me about the socialization of medicine is if its designed without "skin in the game". Whether its in the form of co-pays, taxes, or points for meeting preventative medicine goals. Something. Anything.

 

Here's why.

 

Say there was a co-pay free national car insurance. No skin in the game whatsoever. We'd all take our cars in to the shop for every ping, ding, and scratch. Why? Because its free. But with a deductable to meet, you think twice, weigh your options, and decide if its worth it to you. Maybe even try to fix it yourself, look it up on Car-MD, call your friend for advice, etc. In medicine, skin-in-the-game would help the worried-well from flooding the system and overall cost down.

[Guest Aloysius]

I don't much about this, but apparently France's health care system includes a co-pay system to help reduce the "skin of the teeth" moral hazard problem.

 

Here's an interesting article/blog post on the subject.

[OconRecon]

I don't much about this, but apparently France's health care system includes a co-pay system to help reduce the "skin of the teeth" moral hazard problem.

 

Here's an interesting article/blog post on the subject.

 

Interesting read. Especially the low pay, yet free medical school. That's the primary care threat in the U.S. It's common for student to come out of med school with $150K-$200K in school debt. So, if the average primary care physician makes $140K annually, but already has $200K in debt, then where's the room for a mortgage loan? Now you might say there is enough room there to get a reasonable mortgage, and there is, but then you can be a dermatologist and make $300K+. What would you do? Most are opting not to become internists, pediatricians, and family docs and go into a specialty.

[osusev]

Ahh here is where I miss tupa...

 

I still think looking at the efficiency of Tai-wan and their card /electronic billing and pay system to start with is a must. The second part is tackling the for-profit health care middle financial industry. We DONT NEED THAT the money should basically go from consumer to health care provider. We need to start tackling the cost side of this problem along with inefficiency issues before we realistically can look for a better system.

[Legacy Fan]

go into a specialty.

 

Where you can tack on another $200k of debt & at least 4 more years of no income to pay it off.

 

 

But those sick bastard doctors are just evil

[Mr. T]

If you are an Illegal working here you already get Free Health Care. they hand out the Free Health Care cards like its Trick or Treat.

 

100% payed for by our Taxes, so lets add everybody and see where the Taxes will Go.

 

If you Tax Large Corp. they will leave the country, If you tax small and Medium Businesses they will pass it along to the consumer and cut there own Benefits and along the way will have to eliminate Jobs to cover the costs. and if they dont they will be out of business.

 

So you have a Catch 22 here, Nothing is Free it will cost someone somewhere

[OconRecon]

Why would it be 200 thousand dollars?

I was brought up to pay for my bills if i have to work 10 hours more a week to do it

then so what I was helped.

 

By the way hospitals already set up payment plans for the poor.

 

Med school can be $30-$50K/year before you pay your rent and buy groceries. You may have a loan or two from undergrad. In undergrad, you can work some, but in med school, you go to class until 4 or 5, then study until 10 or 11p every day. No time to work.