Socialized versus Capitalism healthcare and social ideas?

[elessar78]

My stepfather is Swedish and has lived in the US for more than half of his 70 years. His take is that no system is perfect. He says it sucks that we have to pay so much here out of pocket for medical care but it is offset by less taxes. When Sweden wasn't such a popular destination for immigrants, their system was sustainable-now, not so much. People who haven't paid in are using it which has caused a lot of resentment among the usually tolerant Swedes.

In Sweden, major medical care isn't such a catastrophic financial event. In general, the Swedish system is more humane than the American HC system. His words, not mine.

[maat55]

[QUOTE]

Maat, what are your rebuttals to people living abroad and their opinions that healthcare is for everyone? Am I still crazy and misinformed? Or is it a different opinion that Healthcare is a basic right and can be respected as such?

IMO, healthcare is a comodity/service no more a right than food or water. The idea that people from other countries are satified with their socialist systems does not sway me to think that socialism is a better system than the free market.

I happen to believe strongly that our healthcare system is the best in the world, our only problem is that it has been hijacked by government programs. Free market fundamentals are what promote innovation and efficiency. Medicare, Medicaid and group copay plans have tied the hands of the free market.

Constitutionally, healthcare is not a right in america. I believe the Constitution is our only defense from Totalitarianism. I have no problem with states experimenting in social plans, but not the federal government. We do not have the right to consume future generations prosperity in the name of healthcare or retirement. Again, it is not wise for an entity with a printing press to have so many financial obligations.

Also I do not believe people come here for routine medical care. I've been watching a lot of interviews and health insurance companies are starting to SHIP people to Singapore, Thailand, etc for surgeries like bypass, knee replacement because it's much cheaper and higher quality care. So how can the US be number one?

Actually, Asia has a more free market system for they who pay out of pocket. Even in america, those with money get very good care. I equate healthcare to any other comodity, the more money you have, the more house, healthcare etc. you get.


LivingAlmostLarge, I'm not knocking socialized healthcare, but in principle, it is a system based in redistribution. I do not believe in forced redistribution in any form. This is why I do not consider healthcare or any other comodity a right. My freedom to life, liberty and property are rights, which redistribution schemes infringe upon. This is why I resist any form of socialism concerning my individual issues or food, clothing, shelter, healthcare and education.

General Interest
Political theorists since the time of the ancient Greeks have argued in support of the existence of natural rights, meaning those rights that men possessed as a gift from nature (or God) prior to the formation of governments. It is generally held that those rights belong equally to all men at birth and cannot be taken away.

The concept of natural rights received one of its most forceful expositions in the writings of Englishman John Locke (1632-1704), who argued that man was originally born into a state of nature where he was rational, tolerant, and happy. In this original existence man was entitled to enjoy the rights of life, liberty and property.

However, not all men chose to live within the confines of the natural laws and presented threats to the liberties of the others. At this stage man entered into a social contract (compact) in which a state (government) was formed to guarantee the rights of the members of society.

Locke believed that the only reason for the existence of government was to preserve natural rights and, by extension, man’s happiness and security.

These ideas were eagerly accepted by many American colonists in the 18th century, an age when political philosophy was widely read and discussed. James Otis made an eloquent appeal to natural rights in his argument against the writs of assistance in 1761 and Thomas Jefferson offered a classic restatement in the Declaration of Independence in 1776.

[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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

[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).

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

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

High quality care exists in the US. I think a vast majority have access to it, albeit cost becomes a barrier. I think I head the leading cause of bankruptcy filings is medical costs. 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.

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?

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?

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

[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.

Thankfully, the whole purpose of our government is to insure that the constitution remain a living, breathing document. That is why our forefathers gave us the ability to change it - that is why we have a supreme court, because it is not an easy thing to just 'decide' what is constitutional or not. There are many things I feel go against what is written in the constitution, and many things Maat thinks that go against the constitution that we are not in agreement on (for me I think the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment - and I don't think it's consitutional to hold people prisoner at guantnamo bay - for maat he finds social security and health care to be unconstituional) but that is why we have a system in place to help keep to the course of constitutionalism.


It is because of our constitution that our constitution is not set in stone.

I think it is impossible to know what the founding fathers would have thought about the giant corporations that have legal power akin to one citizen, but budgets the size of countries. Nor if they would be for or against health care or social security, because there was nothing like those systems at that time anywhere in the world. And they developed modern democracy, they needed to leave a few other things to other generations.

To claim states rights, that still gives me a bit of the shivers, because that was pretty much the same argument used to try to keep slavery in place. States rights.

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.

And having spent the last 10 years working with global industries around the world - private listed companies - I can tell you that the only thing they have going for them is that they do not have to be as transparent as our government. They are also shockingly poorly run, in most cases, the left hand has no clue what the right hand is doing, all they have to do is turn their projected profit. Not please customers, not make quality products, but turn that profit. You might think one has to do with the other, but you would be surprised.

[Joan.of.the.Arch]

Well said, Mjenn.

[frugalgirl]

Well said, Mjenn.

Well said, indeed.

[maat55]

[QUOTE]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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).

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.

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.