Socialism

[TheSlyMoogle]

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]

Originally Posted by TheSlyMoogle

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]

Originally Posted by TheSlyMoogle

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]

Originally Posted by Professor S

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]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

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]

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

Minus the first few posts, of course.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

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]

Originally Posted by Professor S

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]

Originally Posted by TheGame

(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]

Originally Posted by Bond

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]

Originally Posted by TheGame

(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]

Originally Posted by Professor S

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]

Originally Posted by TheGame

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]

Originally Posted by TheGame

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/on...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]

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/publ..._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.