We are All Socialist at Heart…it’s easier

[gmc]

Originally Posted by QUINNSCOMMENTARY

I don't know how this got on health care in America that was not the original point.

There is a lot of misunderstanding about health care in America. I have worked with health plans and written about the subject and administered corporate plans for over 45 years so I could go on forever and at some point I will as the current administration is again headed in the wrong direction, but that's another debate.

You're the one that mooted it as an upcoming big test.

Socialism is so easy I think more and more Americans will conclude, hey why not? There is one big test coming up and that is health care. Keep your ears open and listen to how many people you hear say they want “free” health care from the government.

How about are there some things that are to important to be left to the private sector and for the good of society as a whole must be provided and paid for by the state. Politics is, in part, the ongoing argument about what those things are and how best to provide them.

For instance no one would argue surely that private individuals or companies should have control of the armed forces or be allowed to have armed forces powerful enough to be a threat. Nor should there be private police forces. The authority of the police is given to them by a willing populace (will most of them) to impose the rule of law. I can't see anyone agreeing to allow private police answerable only to a company.

Education is another. Access to education as a basic right of all-doesn't stop you going to a pruivate school if you want but all should have the right to a good education regardles of ability of the parents to pay. Societies that do well and have succeeded have been those where that principle had been accepted.

Infrastructure-roads etc should be provided for the good of the economy as a whole and not run for private profit alone-otherwise an awful lot of roads would never get built.

As it happens we think healthcare is also something where private profit is best kept out of the equation and the only question is what treatment is possible not whether it is fiscally prudent for the bottom line.

At heart there are many things that we probably all agree should not be left to the marketplace. You're probably a closet socialist except you don't realise you're in the closet

posted by quinns commentary

There is a lot of misunderstanding about health care in America.

There may well be but it is a constant theme in all of the american dramas we see on our TV-someone or other can't afford treatment or the HMO won't pay and people die or go to extremes to get money to pay for healthcare. I read somewhere that medical bills are one of the most common reason people go bankrupt in the US. Being seriously ill can lose you your house here as well-if you can't pay the mortgage as a consequence of not being able to work-but even the destitute don't have to worry about the cost of medical care or that they might be refused treatment.

posted by spot

I'lll give you a working definition of Socialism to contrast with the excessive wealth of the minority which the US currently practices: socialism is the pursuit of the greatest good for the greatest number, with the restriction that it guarantees fairness to all. Fairness certainly doesn't include the option to grow grotesquely rich just because you're good at it.

Actually that's utilitarianism and while undoubtedly influenced socialist thought it is by no means the only such ism to have done so. It also is used to justify dictatorship and the rule of a few for the greater good. As a working definition it leaves much to be desired as it is the one that leads on to the worst excesses all in the name of the greater good.

[spot]

Originally Posted by QUINNSCOMMENTARY

Okay, that was an illustration; at the moment the highest I found was 60% but if you add the VAT in many cases you hit the 70% in a few countries and if you broaden the definition of income tax in, say France you have no trouble hitting it. No matter what you call it, it's a tax and lowers ones net income.

Come on, do some work instead of waving flannel at the subject. VAT applies to a diminishingly small fraction of gross personal income, you know perfectly well that you can't just add the two rates to get a composite. I've told you we did the sums for the UK and US and found diminishing taxation as income rose, starting around 50% and dropping, above $1m/year, to around 40% in both countries. I'll ask again - which country can you claim a 70%+ figure for? Name the country and I'll try to do the same calculation for it, time-consuming though it is. Your claim that it will soon be applicable to the rich in the US is risible.

[spot]

Originally Posted by gmc

Actually that's utilitarianism and while undoubtedly influenced socialist thought it is by no means the only such ism to have done so. It also is used to justify dictatorship and the rule of a few for the greater good. As a working definition it leaves much to be desired as it is the one that leads on to the worst excesses all in the name of the greater good.

If you'd be so good as to put back my qualifier, "with the restriction that it guarantees fairness to all", you'll find I thereby excluded utilitaranism and anything else to do with the greater good at the expense of the few. Adding that qualifier is the standard Rawlsian adjustment. One needs, of course, to work out what's unfair given the ranges of society around the world. In general I'd put it as being so less endowed than the average as to be evidently poor in contrast. In the UK it would include healthcare, schooling, housing, subsistence and at least a bare real disposability to some remaining turnover however humble. Membership of the National Trust for oneself and any children, for example, is £62 a year, I wouldn't count that an unreasonable necessity.

[QUINNSCOMMENTARY]

Originally Posted by gmc

You're the one that mooted it as an upcoming big test.



How about are there some things that are to important to be left to the private sector and for the good of society as a whole must be provided and paid for by the state. Politics is, in part, the ongoing argument about what those things are and how best to provide them.

For instance no one would argue surely that private individuals or companies should have control of the armed forces or be allowed to have armed forces powerful enough to be a threat. Nor should there be private police forces. The authority of the police is given to them by a willing populace (will most of them) to impose the rule of law. I can't see anyone agreeing to allow private police answerable only to a company.

Education is another. Access to education as a basic right of all-doesn't stop you going to a private school if you want but all should have the right to a good education regardless of ability of the parents to pay. Societies that do well and have succeeded have been those where that principle had been accepted.

Infrastructure-roads etc should be provided for the good of the economy as a whole and not run for private profit alone-otherwise an awful lot of roads would never get built.

As it happens we think healthcare is also something where private profit is best kept out of the equation and the only question is what treatment is possible not whether it is fiscally prudent for the bottom line.

At heart there are many things that we probably all agree should not be left to the marketplace. You're probably a closet socialist except you don't realise you're in the closet

posted by quinns commentary


There may well be but it is a constant theme in all of the american dramas we see on our TV-someone or other can't afford treatment or the HMO won't pay and people die or go to extremes to get money to pay for healthcare. I read somewhere that medical bills are one of the most common reason people go bankrupt in the US. Being seriously ill can lose you your house here as well-if you can't pay the mortgage as a consequence of not being able to work-but even the destitute don't have to worry about the cost of medical care or that they might be refused treatment.

posted by spot


Actually that's utilitarianism and while undoubtedly influenced socialist thought it is by no means the only such ism to have done so. It also is used to justify dictatorship and the rule of a few for the greater good. As a working definition it leaves much to be desired as it is the one that leads on to the worst excesses all in the name of the greater good.

In the near future I will start a thread on healthcare. there are many problems to be sure just as there are in all systems and clearly our uninsured is a problem, but not the type of problem one would be lead to believe. But that private profit issue use raise is interesting in that there is always private profit is there not, don't drug makers, physicians, equipment manufacturers make a profit in any system? Our problem is that we have the profit motive skewed in the wrong direction.

I assume you are referencing insurance companies, but in America over 70 million people are covered by large employer self funded plans where there is no insurance company or profit motive and another 40 million or so are covered by Medicare for the 65 and older where there is no profit motive and still the problem of rising costs exits. the myth that insurance companies are causing a major portion of the problem is just that, a myth.

[Snowfire]

Originally Posted by QUINNSCOMMENTARY

In the near future I will start a thread on healthcare. there are many problems to be sure just as there are in all systems and clearly our uninsured is a problem, but not the type of problem one would be lead to believe. But that private profit issue use raise is interesting in that there is always private profit is there not, don't drug makers, physicians, equipment manufacturers make a profit in any system? Our problem is that we have the profit motive skewed in the wrong direction.

I assume you are referencing insurance companies, but in America over 70 million people are covered by large employer self funded plans where there is no insurance company or profit motive and another 40 million or so are covered by Medicare for the 65 and older where there is no profit motive and still the problem of rising costs exits. the myth that insurance companies are causing a major portion of the problem is just that, a myth.

I dont read any post saying profit was wrong. Profit is essential otherwise a business ceases to exist. I think the arguement was against profiteering and excesive greed. Wouldn't you classify Bill Gates as grotesquely rich ? By any standard he is. You cannot defend such excessive wealth using the justification of philanthropy, however transparant the donations might be. Surely it qualifies as obscene when his personal wealth is beyond that of a small 3rd world country. Seems to me that some of that money hasnt been used to its best potential, to say the least.

[Accountable]

Originally Posted by Snowfire

Do you really see social health as depending on the goverment ? I see it as taking the health care decisions away from Health insurance companies and their "profit first" attitude and back into the hospital. I dont see that as breaking the American spirit at all. Just socially reponsible

(Not having read any posts after this one)
I see depending on the government as depending on the government. I would take the health care decisions away from both insurers and hospitals, both controlled by the bottom line, and give it back to the individual -- the individual who has (typically) currently lost the skills required to be independent, self-reliant, and self-disciplined -- rather than giving these responsibilities to politicians and bureaucrats, whose values and interests are as random as the clerk who picks up the file.

[gmc]

Originally Posted by QUINNSCOMMENTARY

In the near future I will start a thread on healthcare. there are many problems to be sure just as there are in all systems and clearly our uninsured is a problem, but not the type of problem one would be lead to believe. But that private profit issue use raise is interesting in that there is always private profit is there not, don't drug makers, physicians, equipment manufacturers make a profit in any system? Our problem is that we have the profit motive skewed in the wrong direction.

I assume you are referencing insurance companies, but in America over 70 million people are covered by large employer self funded plans where there is no insurance company or profit motive and another 40 million or so are covered by Medicare for the 65 and older where there is no profit motive and still the problem of rising costs exits. the myth that insurance companies are causing a major portion of the problem is just that, a myth.

I don't know enough about the way the american system works to comment really. I have an impression garnered from watching american drama. If you watch ours-especially the medical ones- you will seldom see someone getting shot and sometimes there isn't a bed available but no one features who can't afford the treatment.

One advantage of a universal scheme is the sheer buying power it would have to force down the cost of drugs and other stuff.

We have a major problem here with people who have gone privately things like cosmetic surgery and it goes badly wrong and then the NHS has to sort it out for them. personally if they've gone privately and it's gone wrong they should sue the clinic and doctors responsible-don't see why the rest of us should be expected to pick up the tab. You can get private medical insurance here but you only get cover for acute conditions-any chronic and therefore really expensive treatments they won't cover you for and the good old NHS has to pick up the tab.

personally I have no problem with private insurance but if it was done on the basis that electing to pay for private cover meant you opted out of the NHS (except maybe in an emergency situation but then you had to repay the cost) altogether with no right to use it ever again the private medical insurance industry would cease immediately in the UK. When it really comes right down to it for all people complain about it they wouldn't be without it. The majority are inclined to think it obscene that someone with enough money should be able to jump the queue rather than have people taken on a basis of need. My father in law had a heart by-pass operation-it was postponed twice due to an emergency taking precedence. He could have gone privately but did not do so because to him it was a matter of principle-but he's old enough to remember what it was like before we had the NHS. You find a lot of our OAP's feel very strongly about it it was one of the changes that people fought for in this country, it's a matter of principle held dear by many.

I just find it incomprehensible that anyone would tolerate a healthcare system where inability to pay meant you couldn't get treatment. In this country it was a conscious decision that medical care should be freely available to all at the point of need (and it's not actually free we pay for it just not on your sickbed) and voted for it overwhelmingly.

[QUINNSCOMMENTARY]

Originally Posted by Snowfire

I dont read any post saying profit was wrong. Profit is essential otherwise a business ceases to exist. I think the arguement was against profiteering and excesive greed. Wouldn't you classify Bill Gates as grotesquely rich ? By any standard he is. You cannot defend such excessive wealth using the justification of philanthropy, however transparant the donations might be. Surely it qualifies as obscene when his personal wealth is beyond that of a small 3rd world country. Seems to me that some of that money hasnt been used to its best potential, to say the least.

Here is what I was referring to from gmc: "As it happens we think healthcare is also something where private profit is best kept out of the equation and the only question is what treatment is possible not whether it is fiscally prudent for the bottom line. "

[gmc]

Originally Posted by spot

If you'd be so good as to put back my qualifier, "with the restriction that it guarantees fairness to all", you'll find I thereby excluded utilitaranism and anything else to do with the greater good at the expense of the few. Adding that qualifier is the standard Rawlsian adjustment. One needs, of course, to work out what's unfair given the ranges of society around the world. In general I'd put it as being so less endowed than the average as to be evidently poor in contrast. In the UK it would include healthcare, schooling, housing, subsistence and at least a bare real disposability to some remaining turnover however humble. Membership of the National Trust for oneself and any children, for example, is £62 a year, I wouldn't count that an unreasonable necessity.

I'm not ignoring your post I suspect however, we would end up taking the thread way off topic.

[spot]

Originally Posted by gmc

I'm not ignoring your post I suspect however, we would end up taking the thread way off topic.

"We are All Socialist at Heart…it’s easier"? And we're discussing core definitions of socialism? I don't see how it could. I do note, though, that you're the one person in the thread prepared to discuss my points rather than leave them like sleeping elephants.