Socialism [Archive] - GameTavern

Professor S

08-14-2009, 05:56 PM

This is from a post I made in 2004:

Lets look at the details of a passively originated and "perfect" socialist company.

Widget Inc.

Widget Inc. is 100% owned by the employees in equal shares and each employees are paid exactly the same on a profit sharing basis. Sounds great, right? Except for the fact that you have no leadership.

Now, recognizing a CEO is elected by the owners/empliyees of the company and much of the stress of everyday decision making is put on his shoulders. The everyday workers put in 8 hour days, while he often sleeps on the couch in his office crunching numbers late into the night as his leadership will be held accountable if the company is a failure. Meanwhile, he is still being paid the same as the 8 hour a day workers.

He takes his case to the workers and requests more money for his time and importance to the company. The workers, being true socialists, refuse but offer to allow him to elect Vice Presidents to help with the beurocracy of running the company. The CEO chooses several VPs who are then given different tasks to ease his load. They become a huge success and the company succeeds tremendously under the CEO's leadership... and he's getting pissed.

-He selected the VPs
-He's made the decisions that have been profitable to the company
-He's built the company up from his ideas

And he is making as much money and receiving as many rewards as the janitor.

Now accross the street there is a Capitalist company that is doing pretty good but not as well as the Socialist company. The Widget Inc. CEO sees the other company's CEO driving a Porsche and asks why he is trying so hard to make his company a success when those that are not nearly as important as him, disposable employees, make as much money as he does. The company accross the street apporaches him and offers him 10 times what he makes now, and he leaves to work for what he is worth.

The employees are pissed too. There is no advancement. The janitors, factory workers, middle managers are stuck in ruts. No one advances because there is no point. Everyone makes the same money so why bother trying to get a job that is harder for the same money? Life becomes a drudgery. Work suffers and profits decline. The CEO has left so leadership has deteriorated. What made the company such a success to begin with has imploded, a victim of its very nature.

Meanwhile in the Capitalist company, advancement and ambition abounds. There is consistent turn over, as employees accept higher paying jobs and more responsibilty from other Capitalist companies, so internal promotion is the norm. Their employees are paid less then at Widget Inc. initially, but their lives are progressing and the opportunity to achieve more is real and tangible. Wideget Inc's CEO has come aboard with a new vigor with the promise of reward for hard work and a bustling, ever changing work environment. Their company reaches higher and higher profit margins.

It is not the functionality of the structure of Socialism and Communism that is its inherent flaw. It is that these philosophies require humans to be forever apathetic to their own self-worth for them to succeed. This defies the very nature of man.

http://www.gametavern.net/forums/showthread.php?t=9565&page=2&highlight=socialism

That pretty much sums up my feelings on socialism.

Bond

08-14-2009, 06:34 PM

Are you asking concerning the theory of total Socialism, or enacting a few Socialist policies?

The dictionary defines socialism as:

a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism

So, briefly, from the definition we can surmise that socialism nationalizes the idea of production and property. There is no individual production, no individual property (this is the key point). An individual does not bear the fruit of his or her labor, but, rather, the community does. An individual is not entitled to property rights, but, rather, the community is entitled to property rights. The nationalized economy, also, controls all aspects of production within the country, ie. a centrally planned economy. Historically, all centrally planned economies have failed to meet the demand of its citizens, and have collapsed within when confronted with capitalist economic policies. Socialism, as a philosophy, denies the inherent inequalities within humanity, and tries to economically equalize them. Capitalism, on the other hand, accepts the inherent inequalities within humanity, and tries to progress individuals positively.

The above was my breakdown of a pure socialist state. Enacting a few socialist policies in an otherwise capitalist country is quite different and more complex, similar to what one would find in Western and Eastern Europe.

"The essential characteristic of socialism is the denial of individual property rights; under socialism, the right to property (which is the right of use and disposal) is vested in 'society as a whole,' i.e., in the collective, with production and distribution controlled by the state, i.e., by the government. Socialism may be established by force, as in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics - or by vote, as in Nazi (National Socialist) Germany. The degree of socialization may be total, as in Russia - or partial, as in England. Theoretically, the differences are superficial; practically, they are only a matter of time. The basic principle, in all cases, is the same."

"Both 'socialism' and 'fascism' involve the issue of property rights. The right to property is the right of use and disposal. Observe the difference in those two theories: socialism negates private property rights altogether, and advocates the 'vesting of ownership and control' in the community as a whole, i.e., in the state; fascism leaves ownership in the hands of private individuals, but transfers control of the property to the government. Ownership without control is a contradiction in terms: it means 'property,' without the right to use it or to dispose of it. It means that the citizens retain the responsibility of holding property, without any of its advantages, while the government acquires all the advantages without any of the responsibility. In this respect, socialism is the more honest of the two theories. I say 'more honest,' not better - because, in practice, there is no difference between them: both come from the same collectivist-statist principle, both negate individual rights and subordinate the individual to the collective, both deliver the livelihood and the lives of the citizens into the power of an omnipotent government - and the differences between them are only a matter of time, degree, and superficial detail, such as the choice of slogans by which the rulers delude their enslaved subjects."

- Ayn Rand

What do you think, Typhoid?

Typhoid

08-14-2009, 07:07 PM

Are you asking concerning the theory of total Socialism, or enacting a few Socialist policies?

A few socialist policies, not all-out socialism.
I'm aware of what the definition is. I know what socialism is.

Why are a few socialist things that might be better for the "greater good" threatening your way of life and scaring your children while they sleep.

What do you think, Typhoid?

I think a lot of what you were quoting towards the end is a total load of shit. When people think Socialism, they immediately think Communism. I suppose that is the idea of why they keep saying "socialism", however. You don't need to follow socialism directly to the point to have socialist valus, and some socialist principles.

Nobody's mentioning taking anything away from anyone. Nobody is talking of abolishing private property or anything of the matter.

What is the loss of public healthcare? What is there to lose from representation for the states by population?

I agree, enacting some socialist ideas in a large population will be hard. Not everything, however will be socialized. The main issue, is obviously healthcare. It's nearly ludicrous to have private healthcare with a population as large as the U.S.

I'm not talking about full-blown everybody's completely equal communism. But an everybody-at-least-deserves-to-be-treated-for-their-wounds system.

Double Edit:

And by the way, I'm not looking for quotes, links, definitions. I want to know your collective personal opinions and why.

Bond

08-14-2009, 07:35 PM

Typhoid

08-14-2009, 07:43 PM

I'm honestly confused as to what we should be discussing.

But in your view, why is socialism a bad idea?

So far, the only person who actually got it, is Babsy. He didnt link or quote anything. He just gave his personal view.

Bond, I'm not talking healthcare only. I was using that as an example, clearly.

Professor S

08-14-2009, 07:46 PM

A few socialist policies, not all-out socialism.
I'm aware of what the definition is. I know what socialism is.

Why are a few socialist things that might be better for the "greater good" threatening your way of life and scaring your children while they sleep.

That depends on what you define as few and and what you consider the "greater good". Personally, even the idea of a "greater good" is terrifying. Most of the horrors of the 20th century were a result of trying to achieve a "greater good".

I agree, enacting some socialist ideas in a large population will be hard. Not everything, however will be socialized. The main issue, is obviously healthcare. It's nearly ludicrous to have private healthcare with a population as large as the U.S.

Actually the size of the US is one of the reasons I'm so against public healthcare. The larger an institution is, the worse it is in meeting demands and the more likely it is that the customers will become a number rather than a person.

I'm not talking about full-blown everybody's completely equal communism. But an everybody-at-least-deserves-to-be-treated-for-their-wounds system.

I've yet to hear anyone say they were against everyone getting healthcare. We'd like the people to be empowered to make those decisions, have less of their money taken from them so they can decide what they'd like, reform lawsuits to lower insurance costs for providers (that we pay in the long run), and allow companies to compete against each other to create competition and lower cost.

As for those who are left who wouldn't be able to afford any healthcare at all, well, they already qualify for the healthcare programs we currently have and those programs would be greatly relieved by having many of the people on them be able to matriculate to private healthcare systems that give better luxury care options. (Yes, I consider a doctor's visit paid by my insurance company to be a luxury as most people could easily afford their yearly check-up).

The problem is that we're trying to cure a problem based on a lack of choices by inevitable reducing those choices to one, and any public plan, I don't care what anyone says, has the inevitable goal of becoming single payer. It doesn't work otherwise.

Choices creates competition and competition lowers cost and fuels advancements. Fewer choices equals higher prices and low rates of advancement because there are fewer people to compete with and the motivation to innovate and serve is reduced.

Bond

08-14-2009, 07:49 PM

So far, the only person who actually got it, is Babsy. He didnt link or quote anything. He just gave his personal view.

Bond, I'm not talking healthcare only. I was using that as an example, clearly.
Interesting... well, my personal opinion is that socialism is a bad idea based upon its historical, economic, and moral implications that arise from such a philosophy.

Professor S

08-14-2009, 07:51 PM

So far, the only person who actually got it, is Babsy. He didnt link or quote anything. He just gave his personal view.

Um, how did my first post not "get it"? I answered the question as it was asked, and so did Bond. He has nothing to apologize for.

You asked out thoughts on socialism, but you seem to think socialism is just a few socialist ideas, and this is incorrect. if you wanted to know our thought on European social democracies, you should have asked that question. You didn't.

Bond, I'm not talking healthcare only. I was using that as an example, clearly.

That wasn't clear at all, honestly. Public Schools would have been a far better example to defend your point.

Typhoid

08-14-2009, 07:57 PM

Um, how did my first post not "get it"? I answered the question as it was asked, and so did Bond. He has nothing to apologize for.

You asked out thoughts on socialism, but you seem to think socialism is just a few socialist ideas, and this is incorrect. if you wanted to know our thought on European social democracies, you should have asked that question. You didn't.

That wasn't clear at all, honestly. Public Schools would have been a far better example to defend your point.

I missed the "From a post I made" part at the top. Not too good for multitask, plenty good for pretty.

but you seem to think socialism is just a few socialist ideas, and this is incorrect.

Stupidly commenting on this because an argument is bound to ensue - I'm aware of what socialism is. As I said. I am asking what peoples opinions are on socialism. From the broad, to the minute. What do you think of it as a whole, what do you think of specific ideas. Are you for/against - why? What ideas do you like, why/why not. That type of thing.

Also, I never told Bond to apologize.

And I was asking the opinion on the socialism that is all the rage now in the news. I figured it would be pretty obvious I wasn't talking Communism or any form of Marxism. I honestly thought it was fairly blatent that I was talking the type of socialism that the media is so afraid will happen in the U.S.

Professor S

08-14-2009, 08:02 PM

Stupidly commenting on this because an argument is bound to ensue - I'm aware of what socialism is. As I said. I am asking what peoples opinions are on socialism. From the broad, to the minute. What do you think of it as a whole, what do you think of specific ideas. Are you for/against - why? What ideas do you like, why/why not. That type of thing.

Ok, as whole (government policy) I think socialism is dehumanizing and inevitably crushes those it aims to help under it's own weight and devolves rather quickly into a authoritarian regime with few human rights.

As individual structures, I think it can work for small things when run locally, like in the public school system, but the larger it gets, the more unwieldy and ineffectual it becomes.

And I was asking the opinion on the socialism that is all the rage now in the news. I figured it would be pretty obvious I wasn't talking Communism or any form of Marxism. I honestly thought it was fairly blatent that I was talking the type of socialism that the media is so afraid will happen in the U.S.

Ok, but just to clarify, do you think either Bond or myself were referencing communism in our original posts?

Typhoid

08-14-2009, 08:03 PM

Ok, but just to clarify, do you think either Bond or myself were referencing communism in our original posts?

No, but since there was mass confusion, I was blocking every other confusion-point I could.

Professor S

08-14-2009, 08:05 PM

No, but since there was mass confusion, I was blocking every other confusion-point I could.

Was my above opinion satisfactory?

Typhoid

08-14-2009, 08:11 PM

B+.

TheSlyMoogle

08-16-2009, 12:20 PM

Oh to come to this thread....

Anyone want to start another religion thread? Ahh the one from like 5 years ago was amazing.

Anyway...

I agree, why the hell can the US not get it's shit together? There's no reason that everyone shouldn't be afforded health care here. I'm not saying that there's an easy way to do it at all, but everyone should have it.

Education is another thing that really burns me. I have a semester of college until I can graduate and I'm just absolutely tapped out. I can get nothing more to help me finish, and I can't go back right now. All because A.) My Parents were like "Oh hey you're gay? Oh hey f you." and B.) SCHOOL COST TOO FUCKING MUCH.

There's no reason except for ass tons of money, that college shouldn't be free for everyone. Ya know?

Now for my opinion on Socialism:

Ok so the "Socialist Company" example. I get it. Although you're saying everyone gets paid equally sharing the profits so the person who works hardest and all that gets the same, well that's ok. Everyone does their part, and if the Company was doing so incredibly well they're all going to be doing well, you see? Plus, isn't the fact that the company does so well only because of you rewarding in and of itself?

I think my main problem with society is that everyone thinks they're doing more than someone else.

I really just think how much could we actually accomplish as a Nation and world if everyone was equal? What if everyone was afforded the same opportunities no matter to whom they were born and where? Eliminating a capitalist society ideally would eliminate poverty. Sometimes I sit and wonder, like seriously how many intelligent, capable people get fucked their entire life because they were born to a family who only makes 20K a year and is poor? Stuff like that. How limited has our Nation and world become because the majority of it is in poverty for the gains of a capitalist society? I mean think if we missed out on the next, I dunno... Einstein, because he died when he was 3 because of some totally curable disease that his family just couldn't afford to cure or Prevent?

Honestly I would be happy with my life if everyone was equal in society. I would be able to go to school, not have to worry about whether it was ok for me to study something because I might not make that much money when I graduate, but it could be something I actually love doing. I mean honestly what I would love to do with my life is research Abnormal Psychology (Schizophrenia, Bi-Polar Disorder etc.), but I chose Software Engineering because it was less school time for the same amount of money (Although I really do enjoy coding too).

Anyway I'm rambling now.

I saw Socialism all the way.

Professor S

08-16-2009, 04:09 PM

I really just think how much could we actually accomplish as a Nation and world if everyone was equal?

Therein lies the core problem with Socialism. It treats everyone as if they are the same, and this is untrue. Even Marx recognized this:

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

The basic principle of Socialism/Communism/wealth redistribution is that those that achieve have the rewards of that achievement taken from them and given to those who do not achieve/achieve less, or even worse, given to those with no desire to achieve.

So in the end, where is the motivation to achieve? There is none, and those that the socialist construct depends on (the achievers) stop producing to the level that is needed. When you punish success, expect people to stop succeeding.

I would recommend everyone to take a Myer-Briggs self-analysis or D.I.S.C. to examine what your motivations are. I found mine very enlightening and it's helped me succeed by understanding what my strengths and weaknesses are.

http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes2.asp

If anyone is curious, I'm an ENTJ (Extrverssion, iNtuition, Thinking, Judgement).

TheGame

08-16-2009, 04:38 PM

I think my main problem with society is that everyone thinks they're doing more than someone else.

Socialism would not resolve that problem, it'd only add to it. Not only would people still feel like they're doing more then someone else, they'd be getting paid the same for it. Unfortunately not all people give equal imput into a society or even into a buisiness.. and not all people share equal responceability. Thus I don't think everyone should share equal rewards.

However I think health, education, and security are some main things that need to be handled by society collectively to an extent.

Typhoid

08-16-2009, 05:14 PM

So in the end, where is the motivation to achieve? There is none, and those that the socialist construct depends on (the achievers) stop producing to the level that is needed. When you punish success, expect people to stop succeeding.

I agree, that is the main problem. If everyone is the same, and nobody gets praised for doing a better job than someone who's barely trying - the person who should be getting attention will get angry with the situation.

There needs to be some sort of meshing between socialist ideas (aside from the "everyone is equal in every way" part, and more to the "things should be affordable nomatter who you are") and capitalism in the sense of rewarding those who achieve more, without alienating those who don't.

TheGame

08-16-2009, 05:23 PM

There needs to be some sort of meshing between socialist ideas (aside from the "everyone is equal in every way" part, and more to the "things should be affordable nomatter who you are") and capitalism in the sense of rewarding those who achieve more, without alienating those who don't.

That's what North America is now.. just depending on what you mean by the "things" that should be affordable.

Bond

08-16-2009, 05:37 PM

I like this kinder, gentler discussion we're having.

Minus the first few posts, of course.

Professor S

08-16-2009, 08:03 PM

I agree, that is the main problem. If everyone is the same, and nobody gets praised for doing a better job than someone who's barely trying - the person who should be getting attention will get angry with the situation.

There needs to be some sort of meshing between socialist ideas (aside from the "everyone is equal in every way" part, and more to the "things should be affordable nomatter who you are") and capitalism in the sense of rewarding those who achieve more, without alienating those who don't.

I agree with this, and I think socialist constructs can work in limited situations.

My whole belief when it comes to socialized healthcare is that it should fill in the gaps left by private care. But thats not what the healthcare bills are trying to do. The healthcare bills are trying to directly compete with private healthcare by offering their own comprehensive plan, and thats not the government's place. In fact, it's downright cannibalistic and counter-productive to creating a robust economy (which you can argue a strong economy is the most important aspect of healthcare as wealthier countries are healthier countries as a whole).

Identify the problems/gaps, and address them, but to view the US healthcare system as THE problem is just fallacious and an attempt to use the healthcare issue as a means to gain more control over the private sector.

Socialism should be a band aid for capitalism's cuts and bruises, not the other way around, IMO.

TheGame

08-16-2009, 08:34 PM

Identify the problems/gaps, and address them, but to view the US healthcare system as THE problem is just fallacious and an attempt to use the healthcare issue as a means to gain more control over the private sector.

(wow, this is like 4 topics where we get to go here?)

I don't think there's any easy way to address the "gaps".. like the prices, bureaucracy, coverage, and quality without a lot of government intervention. They're about to get their toes stepped on if there's going to be real healthcare reform, no matter how the government goes about doing it.

To me its a question of would you rather throw tax money away into a system that the private sector controls the bottom line on, or would you rather throw money away into a system that the government controls the bottom line on.. Do you trust the government to do te right thing with tax dollars, or do you trust the private sector to do the right thing with tax dollars?

No matter what, there's going to be "more government control" over the private sector in the healthcare industry. Or there's simply not going to be healthcare reform and everything will stay the same for people who are currently insured.

Bond

08-16-2009, 08:50 PM

(wow, this is like 4 topics where we get to go here?)

I don't think there's any easy way to address the "gaps".. like the prices, bureaucracy, coverage, and quality without a lot of government intervention. They're about to get their toes stepped on if there's going to be real healthcare reform, no matter how the government goes about doing it.

To me its a question of would you rather throw tax money away into a system that the private sector controls the bottom line on, or would you rather throw money away into a system that the government controls the bottom line on.. Do you trust the government to do te right thing with tax dollars, or do you trust the private sector to do the right thing with tax dollars?

No matter what, there's going to be "more government control" over the private sector in the healthcare industry. Or there's simply not going to be healthcare reform and everything will stay the same for people who are currently insured.
On the surface, your argument seems to be plausible. But I believe you're operating under a faulty assumption.

Why must one assume that increased government control is necessary for health care reform? As I have clearly shown in previous threads (using actual numbers as part of my evidence) it is very likely that increased government control is in large part to blame for the increased price of health care goods.

Remember, in the 60s, when there was much less government control and regulation of the health care industry, the majority of health care payments were made out of pocket, ie. they were affordable.

You also forget that the federal government created today's PPOs and HMOs that have become much maligned by those in favor of the public option. How do you defend against those two points?

TheGame

08-16-2009, 09:35 PM

On the surface, your argument seems to be plausible. But I believe you're operating under a faulty assumption.

Why must one assume that increased government control is necessary for health care reform? As I have clearly showed in previous threads (using actual numbers as part of my evidence) it is very likely that increased government control is in large part to blame for the increased price of health care goods.

Remember, in the 60s, when there was much less government control and regulation of the health care industry, the majority of health care payments were made out of pocket, ie. they were affordable.

You also forget that the federal government created today's PPOs and HMOs that have become much maligned by those in favor of the public option. How do you defend against those two points?

I won't defend against those points. What happend happend.. The focus now is on correcting the problem as it exists today. I'm sure once upon a time they had their own issues that needed addressing at that time, which caused them to alter the system as they did. Now we're faced with a new problem which may require a different solution.

And right now, from the solutions that have been offered to us by our current leadership (the democrats and republicans), that address all of our healthcare issues seem to either:

1) Toss a large amount of money directly into the private healthcare industry (through tax credits directly to people or incentives to the companies)
2) Force the private healthcare insurance to change their prices/coverage by law
3) Makes private insurers want to drop their prices because of competition (aka the public option)
4) and/or calls for the creation of a new program like medicare or medicaid (alongside one of the 3 above mentioned things) that covers people that privat einsurance won't.

-EDIT-I guess I should toss in a #5 to this list.. making some alteration to current laws and hoping/trusting that private health insurance companies fix the problems themselves, which I've only seen mentioned by John Mccain.. who also mentioned that he wants to do #1, giving everyone a $5,000 tax credit to buy their own insurance-EDIT-

But I'll keep an open mind on this, maybe I haven't read deep enough into what the republican's or conservative democrats have offered instead for reform.. If you know of a senator, or house member, or anyone who has any real say in washington offering up a healthcare reform plan that doesn't include what I have mentioned above and addresses the issues of price, quality, and coverage, feel free to post it.

If you can't find someone who has offered something outside of my narrow box of options... then yeah, no matter what prepare for more government control, or no real healthcare reform.

Professor S

08-16-2009, 11:04 PM

(wow, this is like 4 topics where we get to go here?)

I don't think there's any easy way to address the "gaps".. like the prices, bureaucracy, coverage, and quality without a lot of government intervention.

Government may be able o do many things, but cutting bureaucracy is not one of them. Maybe government intervention in healthcare is necessary, but expect it to increase bureaucracy, not decrease it. Government IS bureaucracy.

I realize this current administration is promising many things such as cutting bureaucracy and costs, but if they were to achieve that it would be the first time in history federalizing something made it cheaper and simpler. I think Bond illustrated that point very well.

TheGame

08-16-2009, 11:14 PM

Government may be able o do many things, but cutting bureaucracy is not one of them. Maybe government intervention in healthcare is necessary, but expect it to increase bureaucracy, not decrease it. Government IS bureaucracy.

I realize this current administration is promising many things such as cutting bureaucracy and costs, but if they were to achieve that it would be the first time in history federalizing something made it cheaper and simpler. I think Bond illustrated that point very well.

I'd rather try.. oppsed to siting back and doing nothing, or keeping things the same. This is something that is broken about our current private healthcare insurance companies. Either the government can try and fix it by forcing or bribing existing companies into doing it, or can fix it by trying it themselves, or it simply can't be fixed.

Bond

08-16-2009, 11:32 PM

I won't defend against those points. What happend happend..
Nice.

Well, since I have previously spent all of my time looking backward and being a nay-sayer, here is my proposal for health reform:

Bond's Proposal for Health Care Reform

This proposal strives to meet three key goals:

1) Not to force health insurance on any citizen who does not wish to be insured.
2) Lower the average premium of private insurance so that it is more affordable for citizens.
3) Form a mutual insurance company for those citizens who cannot afford normal private insurance.

The goals will be achieved in the following manner:

1) Not to force health insurance on any citizen who does not wish to be insured.

Self-explanatory.

2) Lower the average premium of private insurance so that it is more affordable for citizens.

The following actions will dramatically lower the average, much-inflated, premium for citizens:

- Institute a federal cap on medical malpractice, adjusted accordingly per state economic differences.

- Allow for interstate competition between health insurance companies (eliminating protectionism automatically drives down prices).

- Fix the disproportionate reimbursement scheme by the government via Medicaid for private hospitals and insurance companies. This will be done by substantially reforming Medicaid, which will soon (or this may already be the case) no longer be able to cover its liabilities.

- Stop providing care to illegal immigrants. Provide absolutely no luxury care to illegal immigrants, then deport them. Provide care that is capped in an emergency situation. After they have recovered, deport them.

All of these changes will drive down insurance premiums, which will allow more citizens to purchase insurance.

3) Form a mutual insurance company for those citizens who cannot afford normal private insurance.

The mutual insurance company for low-income earners will be run just like any mutual insurer is, except for a few key differences. First, the mutual insurance will receive an initial injection of capital that will keep it running for two years by the federal government. This will be the level of the government's role within the mutual insurer. The capital provided by the government will cover administrative costs, and meet any other costs in excess of the premiums received.

The mutual insurance company will be for catastrophic care. This will not be a luxury insurer, but rather a basic insurer for those who cannot afford normal private insurance.

The mutual insurance company will be jointly run by local private charities within states, with a central office in Washington, D.C., that will only aggregate the finances of the insurer. Charities have played a historically important role throughout health care's history (the Catholic church invented modern health care). The charities will use the government's money to overcome unforeseen costs for the first two years, and then rely solely on donations and fundraising efforts to cover the additional cost.

Once capital can be raised in excess of a required reserve to meet unforeseen costs that cannot be met by the premiums, the mutual insurance company will be begin to pay back the federal government for the initial capital.

Professor S

08-16-2009, 11:37 PM

I'd rather try.. oppsed to siting back and doing nothing, or keeping things the same.

I didn't suggest keeping things the same, and neither do most of the people who are the public options biggest critics. Even the Republican party has a reform plan, warts and all. Reform does not necessarily equal replace.

If it didn't work well for the majority of the country, there would be no argument on this subject.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/121820/one-six-adults-without-health-insurance.aspx

This poll says 16% don't have insurance (above 18), but I'll say that 20% don't have insurance (I've seen those numbers before). That still leaves 80% who do, and that percentage on the whole have far lower wait times for specialists and getting on average a better quality of care. American style healthcare works quite well, but the main problem is it doesn't cover everyone and costs are too high for those who have it. I think Bond at the very least has a a solution that has at least proven to help drive down costs if nothing else as those measures he lists have driven down costs for other services such as car insurance and telecommunications.

I'm all for finding healthcare answer, but to speak in healthcare terms, the US system has a broken arm. This is a serious ailment to be sure but you don't treat a broken arm by replacing both of his legs, transplanting his heart and performing a frontal lobotomy. The cure needs to fit the disease. Tranformation to the complete unknown is not necessary and is honestly very irresponsible given the current state of American healthcare.

TheGame

08-17-2009, 12:06 AM

To Bond:

I can already see possible issues with what you have suggested, however if things fell into line perfectly it wouldn't be a bad start. However, nobody is offering such ideas in washington right now, both sides want to spend money in different ways, and both sides ideas will result in increased government control over private healthcare insurance companies, and increased spending.

Instead of shooting down ideas that are really being discussed in washington.. of the ideas that are being discussed which ones would you go for? I'm sure they'd fall within the parameters of my above post.

To Prof:

I'm not sure how it transitioned from being about bureaucracy to being about a raw amount of people who are covered.. But lets go to the poll you posted in the other thread.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/august_2009/confidence_in_u_s_health_care_system_has_grown_in_recent_months

48% of people say their healthcare is good or excelent.. meaning 52% of people wouldn't even call their insurance "good" And lets say 20% of those 52% don't have coverage... that's still pretty pathetic.

I think this classifies as more then a broken arm.

Professor S

08-17-2009, 12:17 AM

To Prof:

I'm not sure how it transitioned from being about bureaucracy to being about a raw amount of people who are covered.. But lets go to the poll you posted in the other thread.

You transitioned it in your past post when you started American healthcare is broken, but thats neither her nor there.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/august_2009/confidence_in_u_s_health_care_system_has_grown_in_recent_months

48% of people say their healthcare is good or excelent.. meaning 52% of people wouldn't even call their insurance "good" And lets say 20% of those 52% don't have coverage... that's still pretty pathetic.

I think this classifies as more then a broken arm.

You're also conveniently ignoring the information that I posted in the same report that only 19% consider it poor. There is a large middle ground in there of "ok". To me "ok" is perfectly fine especially when considering this is based on subjective opinion and what is good to one person might be just be ok to another.

So if you want to look at the numbers comprehensively, 81% of people rate their healthcare as "ok/acceptable to excellent" and 19% consider it poor.

It's a broken arm.

TheGame

08-17-2009, 12:30 AM

So if you want to look at the numbers comprehensively, 81% of people rate their healthcare as "ok/acceptable to excellent" and 19% consider it poor.

It's a broken arm.

I guess that would depend on what standard you hold the country to. To imply that people who voted as "Fair" are satisfied with their health care insurance is misleading. But I guess its one of those glass half full, glass half empty things.

The way I see it, since the poll only had 4 options.. "Fair" would be a negative responce since there's two options better, and only one option worse. People who think their healthcare is satisfactory, but don't want to imply its perfect picked "good".. people who think their healcare is not satisfactory, but don't want to call it horrible picked "fair".

Hell I would have voted for fair.

That's just my opinion though.

Professor S

08-17-2009, 08:38 AM

Well thats certainly one way of looking at it, but if that were the case I would have hoped the pollsters would have rephrased the question to include two above average and two below average.

Here is the entire question and answer list, with percentages:

1* How do you rate the healthcare you receive….excellent, good, fair or poor?

35% Excellent
39% Good
17% Fair
7% Poor
1% Not sure

2* How do you rate the U.S. health care system? Excellent, good, fair, or poor?

17% Excellent
31% Good
30% Fair
19% Poor
4% Not sure

3* Do you have health insurance?

85% Yes
14% No
2% Not sure

4* (answered only by those who have health insurance) How do you rate your own health insurance coverage?

35% Excellent
45% Good
15% Fair
4% Poor
0% Not sure

5* Are you willing to pay higher taxes so all Americans can be provided with health insurance?

28% Yes
60% No
12% Not sure

NOTE: Margin of Sampling Error, +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/toplines/pt_survey_toplines/august_2009/toplines_health_care_august_1_2_2009

I highlighted what I thought wre two telling areas. One of the biggest things that pops out at me is that while 19% of the respondents believe the quality of US healthcare is poor, only 7% think their level orcare is poor, and only 4% of the insured rate their healthcare as poor (keep in mind the poll itself has a +/- 3% margin for error).

Even more telling, 74% of the respondents rated their own care as good to excellent, and 91% rated their own care as fair to excellent. Meanwhile, the same respondents rated US healthcare overall as only 48% good to excellent and 78% fair to excellent.

It seems this issue may be as much a product of perception as it is reality.

TheGame

08-17-2009, 09:58 AM

I could see how it could be taken that way prof, but you have to consider the fact that private insurance companies take mostly people who don't have health conditions to start, and if you get too sick you're likely to lose coverage. So most of the people who voted on their opinion of their own insurance probably hardly get sick to begin with.

Just because someone doesn't currently have health insurance doesn't mean that they havent had bad experiences with it. And people who voted for the other part objectively could have voted based off of other people's experiences with it who actually got sick or who actually have health conditions to begin with.

Professor S

08-17-2009, 10:47 AM

I could see how it could be taken that way prof, but you have to consider the fact that private insurance companies take mostly people who don't have health conditions to start, and if you get too sick you're likely to lose coverage.

This is currently against the law and insurance companies can and have been sued in these extremely rare cases (and thats always the case that makes the news, isn't it?). To say that insurance companies drop people as soon as they get seriously ill is not an accurate or fair comment considering the 10's of millions who are covered and never have a problem like you are describing.

So most of the people who voted on their opinion of their own insurance probably hardly get sick to begin with.

If you want to believe that you can, but the poll concentrated on everyone regardless of whether or not they are insured (only one questions was aimed at the insured) and there is nothing hre to support your claim.

Just because someone doesn't currently have health insurance doesn't mean that they havent had bad experiences with it.

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here and I don't think any of my arguments claimed they didn't have experiences with it.

And people who voted for the other part objectively could have voted based off of other people's experiences with it who actually got sick or who actually have health conditions to begin with.

That certainly could be the case, but I haven't seen anything that would support such a claim. What we can take from these numbers is that people's perception of other people's healthcare is far different for what the group as a whole is actually receiving (based on personal feedback). In essence, John thinks his healthcare is good, but thinks Jane's is not, and Jane thinks her healthcare is just fine but thinks John's stinks. According to this poll, this negativity is not warrented.

This is much more likely a result of political efforts and media messages/sensationalism than word of mouth from all the people with poor healthcare who were disproportionally excluded from the polling process. To achieve the kind of inaccrurate reporting you claim is to assume the poll is intentionally biased and thats simply dismissing parts you don't like (the majority of the poll it turns out) because it's inconvenient to your point of view. In that case you would have been better off not referencing it.

TheGame

08-17-2009, 12:16 PM

I suppose it'd depend on someone's interpretation of the results. You'll see it in a way that supports your own arguement, and I'll see it in a way that supports mine. So there's really no point argueing anymore. However I would like to point out one thing:

This is currently against the law and insurance companies can and have been sued in these extremely rare cases (and thats always the case that makes the news, isn't it?). To say that insurance companies drop people as soon as they get seriously ill is not an accurate or fair comment considering the 10's of millions who are covered and never have a problem like you are describing.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/health-care-reform/2009/08/hhs_insurance_companies_encour.html

BreakABone

08-17-2009, 12:52 PM

So we went from socialism to healthcare reform.

Weep.

I think the funniest/most telling thing about Prof's polls are the people who respond they don't know if they have health insurance. How exactly does that work.

Professor S

08-17-2009, 12:56 PM

I suppose it'd depend on someone's interpretation of the results. You'll see it in a way that supports your own arguement, and I'll see it in a way that supports mine. So there's really no point argueing anymore.

I see it in the way that is supported by the information in the polls themselves, you have literally created "what if" scenarios that imagine conversations that the respondents may or may not have had with people who may or may not have had bad expriences with healthcare.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/health-care-reform/2009/08/hhs_insurance_companies_encour.html

1)Consdier the source: HealthReform.gov. Something tells me this government owned group has an interest in pushing a public option seeing how this administration believes reform = transformation. I wouldn't call it an objective source.

2) If these numbers are accurate and not simply taken out of context to illustrate a point of view, it shows that some people have gotten the shaft, but even with those numbers please don't make that the mistake of considering it the norm. It's a fair estimate that 80% of Americans have coverage, and that's well over 200 million people.

There are plenty of people with private insurance who are being treated for life threatening/expensive ailments right now. In fact, over 1.5 million people are diagnosed with cancer each year alone. If the 20,000 mentioned were only dropped fro cancer, that would still be about 1.3% that are dropped or if you take 80% of those patients (to reflect the insured) that makes 1.2 million insured cancer patients, and that makes it 1.6% that are dropped (that looked low to me but the math supports it).

http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/all.html

These drops are not acceptable in my view, but I never said it was. These companies ned to be sued when appropriate and the system needs some reform... not transformation.

3) At no point does that article mention whether or not the companies were sued, what the legal options were for those that were dropped, or what happened to the insured after they were dropped. It is against contract law to re-write the terms after it's signed and there are respources available for anyone who experiences this.

Speaking of recourse, this is also one of the biggest problems with a public option. What happens if someone receives negligent care and wants to sue for damages? Right now, the US government can only be sued if the US government says you can sue it. In fact, the first drafts of the house bill included a provision that the federal government couldn't be sued because of healthcare issues (that was removed, thankfully) and from what I've seen the current bills don't expressly give citizens a right to legal recourse.

Once again, no one here is saying the current system doesn't need reform. But it needs reform, not transformation.