Health Care and the US Elections

[Revoltingest]

Taxes are collected from everyone and used to provide necessary services to everyone, free of charge. That's exactly socialism.

Nah.

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

a theory or system of social organization that advocates the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, capital, land, etc., by the community as a whole, usually through a centralized government.

Why obsess over a definition?
Because the word "socialism" carries much emotional baggage.
And it doesn't apply to services that aren't the means of production,
eg, health care.
It's more difficult to get cooperation of conservatives when the very
language of policy frightens them.

Edit...
I see that the bear already addressed this.

 

[F1fan]

It would be a miracle if the US had that kind of healthcare. Miracles almost never happen.

The major reason is because republicans oppose any efforts to create universal healthcare. They are committed to the insurance system which is way too expensive for amny even though the ACA was passed. Republicans have tried to repeal it, and since they failed over 70 times, they have done things to sabotage its cost saving elements, like cancelling the mandate and not funding the subsidies. Today they call it socialized medicine, and they consider anything they label "socialist" as unAmerican and a threat. It's sad what the conservatives have become, and how they work against the interests of citizens, and for the interests of the wealthy.

 

[Nakosis]

Loading…

www.cnn.com

Despite the fact that socialized medicine would save you guys a bundle, you seem to routinely vote against it. What is the fear with socialized medicine?

Someone has to pay for it. Meaning the taxpayers. So we wouldn't actually be saving any money though the cost maybe spread farther. Generally though if the pool of money for health care is larger, services for health care increase to gather in more of the available pool.

Doctors, nurses, pharmacies are all used to making a pretty good living from the medical industry. You'd be asking the entire industry to take hit in their quality of living. The ACA was supposed to semi socialize medicine but what it ended up doing was driving the costs even higher.

The medical industry sees a large pool of money and they start planing how to get a larger piece of it.

The US is kind of screwed when it comes to health care. The government already spends more than most countries. We need to somehow control the costs first, which no one in the industry is willing to do. And, there is a big medical lobby, a lot of pay outs necessary to bring new drugs to the market. Current politicians benefit from supporting the medical industry.

Not really much will by the people who could change it to change it. Doesn't really matter who you vote for.

 

[Watchmen]

Not sure how you think that is in any way related to how health care plans are run.
The insurance companies don't do any research. They just pay the bills (or try their best to find reasons not to).
Do you think private insurance companies spend billions on pharmaceutical or medical research?

The research is done primarily by universities. Pharma also does R&D off course, but usually they just build upon research done by scientific centers (like harvard medical school and alike).

Many countries that have universal health care programs do plenty of great research and are also leading players in various area's. Belgium's universities for example, a very small country compared to most others, is a very big player in cancer research.

Not clear to me at all why people think that innovation and research would be impacted if private health insurance companies wouldn't be part of the equation in public health care systems.

I don’t necessarily disagree with anything you said, yet there does seem to be a correlation.

 

[Revoltingest]

The insurance companies don't do any research. They just pay the bills (or try their best to find reasons not to).
Do you think private insurance companies spend billions on pharmaceutical or medical research?

That's wrong. Insurers do research, but of a different kind.
That's been Mrs Revolt's expertise, ie, health care analytics
regarding efficacy of procedures, efficacy of providers (eg,
hospitals), & such.
It's important research to minimize cost, maximize beneficial
results, identify problem areas, & identify best practices.

 

[Balthazzar]

National defense, education, healthcare, social welfare, etc. We only have this much to resource, we have this going on, that going on, and we project an increased need in this area, etc. The pie is much smaller than we'd like, so we borrow and increase our deficit to fund the demands and needs of our citizens and there's so much going on and with all the needs, it's difficult to get it anywhere remotely acceptable for everyone, so then it comes down to who matters most, who's more able to increase the pie, and which needs require addressing first. I'm a republican for this reason. We need private sector involvement and smaller government involvement to address the mounting issue we face. Private enterprise should be on the rise, but most are content to ***** about their employers and how unfair they are with the benefits offered and wages.

Ok, so there isn't any money left in the pie we're forced to draw from. It has all already been spent. We're so far in the red, it's difficult to imagine how we'll ever balance out. No one likes paying taxes. After all, we all know unworthy people benefit from our contributions, so why should they reap where we sow in blood, sweat, tears, and difficulty. Lazy ******** can't even involve themselves in our election processes without voting based on what will be offered as incentives for their ongoing support. Who's paying? We all are. I jest about the lazy ********, but lets gets real. Some people simply want free stuff, and we don't even have a pie left to feed ourselves with.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Someone has to pay for it. Meaning the taxpayers. So we wouldn't actually be saving any money though the cost maybe spread farther. Generally though if the pool of money for health care is larger, services for health care increase to gather in more of the available pool.

Doctors, nurses, pharmacies are all used to making a pretty good living from the medical industry. You'd be asking the entire industry to take hit in their quality of living. The ACA was supposed to semi socialize medicine but what it ended up doing was driving the costs even higher.

The medical industry sees a large pool of money and they start planing how to get a larger piece of it.

The US is kind of screwed when it comes to health care. The government already spends more than most countries. We need to somehow control the costs first, which no one in the industry is willing to do. And, there is a big medical lobby, a lot of pay outs necessary to bring new drugs to the market. Current politicians benefit from supporting the medical industry.

Not really much will by the people who could change it to change it. Doesn't really matter who you vote for.

You already have:

- about 67 million people on Medicare
- about 74 million people on Medicaid
- about 9 million people on Tricare (health insurance program for military, veterans and their families)
- about 10 million people on FEHB (health insurance program for federal employees and their dependents)


... so nearly half of the people in the US are already on health insurance programs provided by or funded by the federal government.

 

[Nakosis]

You already have:

- about 67 million people on Medicare
- about 74 million people on Medicaid
- about 9 million people on Tricare (health insurance program for military, veterans and their families)
- about 10 million people on FEHB (health insurance program for federal employees and their dependents)


... so nearly half of the people in the US are already on health insurance programs provided by or funded by the federal government.

Exactly, that is part of the problem.
So why change it?
Most people are getting what they want out of it.

 

[Nakosis]

That's wrong. Insurers do research, but of a different kind.
That's been Mrs Revolt's expertise, ie, health care analytics
regarding efficacy of procedures, efficacy of providers (eg,
hospitals), & such.
It's important research to minimize cost, maximize beneficial
results, identify problem areas, & identify best practices.

Yes, privatization set up competition. You, companies can seek out the better deals.
A single payer would have no competition. We'd all have to pay whatever the government dictated as the cost regardless of the quality of the benefits.

The only way, imo, would be for the government to take over the entire industry. I don't think anyone has the willingness for that.

It's the system we have in the US, for better or worse, we try to make the best of it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Exactly, that is part of the problem.
So why change it?
Most people are getting what they want out of it.

A few big reasons:

1. A system of privatized profits and socialized losses is the worst of both worlds.

2. A lot of the people in the other half not covered by public health insurance are needlessly dying or suffering from chronic conditions.

3. A more systematically-designed system that covers everyone would lower costs and reduce the number of people who fall through the cracks.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, privatization set up competition. You, companies can seek out the better deals.
A single payer would have no competition.

If a Plan B is allowed, there'd be limited competition,
ie, government system performance would be
compared / contrasted with private services.

 

[Estro Felino]

The major reason is because republicans oppose any efforts to create universal healthcare. They are committed to the insurance system which is way too expensive for amny even though the ACA was passed. Republicans have tried to repeal it, and since they failed over 70 times, they have done things to sabotage its cost saving elements, like cancelling the mandate and not funding the subsidies. Today they call it socialized medicine, and they consider anything they label "socialist" as unAmerican and a threat. It's sad what the conservatives have become, and how they work against the interests of citizens, and for the interests of the wealthy.

Even if there were 500 democrat members of the Congress, they still would not implement it.

 

[Pogo]

I just have to speak up about the US, and garbage collection. Here in Ohio we pay for it and are charged extra for extra pickups, recycling, etc.

It varies, in large cities like NY it is usually directly provided by the city through taxes. In smaller cities/urban areas it is often contracted by the city and paid by taxes. The alternative in more rural areas and towns is market capitalism, I have the choice of I think five collection services, which means there are pickups pretty much every day of the week driving by. This is actually what drives many municipalities to contract or provide service, the people don't want garbage trucks driving by every morning. As for the per bag tags or whatever system is in effect in your area, that goes to paying the actual dumps and in some cases for the dump closing costs for former dumps. Recycling is in my case run by the county so everybody pays for it via taxes and the pickup is contracted out.

The point is that while that may not be the best example, an awful lot of the things we take for granted are actually "socialist" policies and railing against socialism as evil is really ridiculous and disingenuous.

I note one major exception to socialist things. Social Media is anything but socialist and we can see how well that works.

 

[Pogo]

stop, your Canadian, and obviously know little abot Texas
Socialism is a political and economic theory that advocates for public ownership of property and natural resources, rather than private ownership

Police, fire, and such, do not fall under the above definition.... receive. bill...obviously you know nothing about taxes we pay.....

Medical, whoopy doopy, nothing new, yup I know..... been there done that, was rather impressed when I had to go to the emergency room in Norway....

Listen, you want to argue with someone about socialism, I'm not the guy, I'm not against it, I'm not for it, I'm not threatened by it. However I do have a good grasp on reality in the USA and its current state of political stupidity. I am however fed the hell up with politics, and the politicization of every damn thing and this ridiculous "We are part socialism": discussion from folks, from places other than here, and those from here and especially those from here, that have no clue what-so-ever what politics and politicians are really like, other than what they are spoon fed by their chosen political messiah, or what they get from the propaganda that agrees with them that they refuse to research to find out if it is reality or not ..... so please...move on, find someone else to preach to, and or argue with, I guarantee you, I am not the guy.....TTFN

And the state owns the streets and the utility rights of way and any number of other examples even in Texas, Nobody is arguing for public ownership of all property or businesses or any of the other shibboleths that those decrying socialism. Texas is not really that different from Canada, You are right, the claims that socialism are evil are just ignorantly ridiculous.

 

[Revoltingest]

And the state owns the streets and the utility rights of way and any number of other examples even in Texas, Nobody is arguing for public ownership of all property or businesses or any of the other shibboleths that those decrying socialism. Texas is not really that different from Canada, You are right, the claims that socialism are evil are just ignorantly ridiculous.

The ignorance is people calling anything
owned / run by government "socialism".
Socialism is government owning the means
of production, ie, no private capitalism.
It is indeed evil, eg, N Korea, USSR.

 

[Estro Felino]

The ignorance is people calling anything
owned / run by government "socialism".
Socialism is government owning the means
of production, ie, no private capitalism.
It is indeed evil, eg, N Korea, USSR.

In Italian, whenever we have to define a kind of enteprise that cashes in on people's misfortunes, we call it business. è un business = that is a unfair business.
I wonder why...we use a foreign word to define something negative.

 

[Revoltingest]

In Italian, whenever we have to define a kind of enteprise that cashes in on people's misfortunes, we call it business. è un business = that is a unfair business.
I wonder why...we use a foreign word to define something negative.

I've no idea why Italians do what they do.

 

[Estro Felino]

I've no idea why Italians do what they do.

I have a dream. A universal healthcare in the US like in Britain.

 

[Revoltingest]

I have a dream. A universal healthcare in the US like in Britain.

Great....regular strikes by providers.
I want something better.

 

[F1fan]

Even if there were 500 democrat members of the Congress, they still would not implement it.

Your contempt for the USA, democrats, democracy, and liberalism is always coloring your baseless and absurd claims.