special privileges

[Dr.Who]

It is partly because health care can do more now. It is partly due to the fear of lawsuits. It is partly due to the fact that there are some who can't pay, and the providers have to make up the difference. There are a lot of reasons why health care is so expensive.

I agree. I heard the stat today that the uncompensated health care costs are only 2% of the total. If that is true then we as a nation could easily cover that in ways that do not turn us into a socialism.

 

[Dr.Who]

Single payer health care is not changing the fundamental nature of our economy. it is changing the fundamental nature of our health insurance only.

Right now the gov controls a large part of our economy in terms of GDP. close to the amount that is controlled by the French socialist government.

If health care becomes controlled by the gov then we will have surpassed France in terms of a measure of how socialist a country is. This would be the largest single step toward socialism of any step we have taken to date.

 

[PLC1]

Right now the gov controls a large part of our economy in terms of GDP. close to the amount that is controlled by the French socialist government.

If health care becomes controlled by the gov then we will have surpassed France in terms of a measure of how socialist a country is. This would be the largest single step toward socialism of any step we have taken to date.

I think you're falling into the same trap as I was, words that mean different things to different people. Let's clarify:

socialism

* Main Entry: so·cial·ism
* Pronunciation: \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\
* Function: noun
* Date: 1837

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Which definition of Socialism do you think describes the current state of affairs in France?

 

[Dr.Who]

You'd like to see a capitalist safety net? I wonder how that might work?

As a nation we motivate people to work hard and try their best. We establish a system in which the gov does all it can to ensure that justice is done by all. We provide the land of opportunity.

Then we recognize that even in a land of opportunity some will fail. We do not leave them to die in the street. Every person who makes that claim should be ashamed of themselves. It is not being advocated by anyone worth listening to.

Then as a nation we offer a network of methods of paying for, borrowing, and giving to those who are in need. A true lessaiz fair approach in which no action at all taken by anyone to shape the form that it takes would not be best. But nameless bureaucrats can't do it either. And just balancing the two is not right either. We don't need half of one and half of another. We need bureaucrats to do what they should do and we need the people of the nation to do what they should do - these are different roles not just a degree of how much of a role.

Our leaders cannot spend our money on objects of charity but there is no reason that they cannot inspire and lead. Citizens and leaders alike can shape a system in which charity (which is already exercised in the US more than in any other country on earth) becomes such an ingrained aspect of our national character that these issues become non-issues. State government can set in place the mechanism by which giving becomes so easy and painless and beneficial that just about everyone would participate and all with a need would be helped. The amount of people in need is not as great as some would have us believe. There is plenty of money to go around. Fifty dollars per person per month would pay for all medical public aid. that is a pittance. If Americans stopped giving on average 2% of what they earn and started giving 10% and if those who give nothing gave something then we would be awash in money. In fact, in some ways we already are. There are a zillion charities out there that collect millions of dollars for cats and the promotion of the arts. There are people who want to give but they don't know to whom to give. Can you name one charity that exists to pay for the medical needs of those without health care? It is hard*. Partly because the need is actually small and partly because that has not been a part of our national debate.


* I am thinking of the Ronald Mcdonald house but it does not pay for medical needs it pays for families to stay with sick children. Then there is Muscular Dystrophy foundation but they don't offer treatments they provide research and camps. Etc.

 

[PLC1]

As a nation we motivate people to work hard and try their best. We establish a system in which the gov does all it can to ensure that justice is done by all. We provide the land of opportunity.

Then we recognize that even in a land of opportunity some will fail. We do not leave them to die in the street. Every person who makes that claim should be ashamed of themselves. It is not being advocated by anyone worth listening to.

Then as a nation we offer a network of methods of paying for, borrowing, and giving to those who are in need. A true lessaiz fair approach in which no action at all taken by anyone to shape the form that it takes would not be best. But nameless bureaucrats can't do it either. And just balancing the two is not right either. We don't need half of one and half of another. We need bureaucrats to do what they should do and we need the people of the nation to do what they should do - these are different roles not just a degree of how much of a role.

Our leaders cannot spend our money on objects of charity but there is no reason that they cannot inspire and lead. Citizens and leaders alike can shape a system in which charity (which is already exercised in the US more than in any other country on earth) becomes such an ingrained aspect of our national character that these issues become non-issues. State government can set in place the mechanism by which giving becomes so easy and painless and beneficial that just about everyone would participate and all with a need would be helped. The amount of people in need is not as great as some would have us believe. There is plenty of money to go around. Fifty dollars per person per month would pay for all medical public aid. that is a pittance. If Americans stopped giving on average 2% of what they earn and started giving 10% and if those who give nothing gave something then we would be awash in money. In fact, in some ways we already are. There are a zillion charities out there that collect millions of dollars for cats and the promotion of the arts. There are people who want to give but they don't know to whom to give. Can you name one charity that exists to pay for the medical needs of those without health care? It is hard*. Partly because the need is actually small and partly because that has not been a part of our national debate.


* I am thinking of the Ronald Mcdonald house but it does not pay for medical needs it pays for families to stay with sick children. Then there is Muscular Dystrophy foundation but they don't offer treatments they provide research and camps. Etc.

It would take a lot of charitable giving to eliminate 62% of the bankruptcies in the US.

Sixty-two percent of all bankruptcies filed in 2007 were linked to medical expenses, according to a nationwide study released today by the American Journal of Medicine. That's nearly 20 percentage points higher than that pool of respondents reported were connected to medical costs in 2001.

 

[Dr.Who]

Yes, let's. Even one denial is one too many.

If a person lies to social security about their age and gets medicare should they not later be denied coverage when it is determined that they are too young?

So it is not denials that are wrong but denials for no good reason.

For these there is a system where the gov is supposed to correct the wrong situation. If they are not doing their job blame them.

 

[Dr.Who]

Yes, that is the biggest obstacle, along with the pre existing conditions clause.

Hello! Insurance is not suppose to pay for pre-existing conditions that is not insurance that is something else. If you want that something else then advocate for it but don't call it insurance or confuse it with the issue.

Your home owners insurance will not pay for a fire you had before they insured your house.

Your auto insurance will not pay for an accident you had before you had the policy.

You health insurance should also not pay for medical problems you had before you had the insurance.

 

[Dr.Who]

Yes, and watch employers drop health insurance like a hot potato, or go out of business trying to do the right thing by their employees.

I actually meant to say that unequal tax breaks should not be given to employers that offer insurance. That could be done either by eliminating the tax break that employers get but that single policy buyers don't OR by offering the break to the single policy buyers.

If it took the form of eliminating the break for employers then you are right they would stop offering insurance. they would start offering higher wages and people could use the money to buy policies - jut like they did before the break existed in the first place, back when everyone bought their own policy.

 

[Dr.Who]

If health care charity were collected on tax forms, how would that not be taxpayer money? Are you suggesting that enough could be collected by voluntary deductions?

I think you're dreaming on that one.

If there is enough money out there to collect in taxes then there is enough to collect in donations.

If you don;t think that people want to give it then the alternative is to force people to fork it over. And that is wrong.

But any amount given voluntarily would be a step in the right direction. There is no excuse to not have this be a part of the forms already. At the very least it would reduce the amount that is taken from people by force right now today.

 

[Dr.Who]

I think you're falling into the same trap as I was, words that mean different things to different people. Let's clarify:

socialism




Which definition of Socialism do you think describes the current state of affairs in France?

These two are pretty close:

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

Marx would have said that the means of production was limited to actual factories but I don't see I that way.

France exercises a lot of control over various kinds of production and distribution of various things.

 

[Dr.Who]

It would take a lot of charitable giving to eliminate 62% of the bankruptcies in the US.

I was talking about the people who have medical needs that they would not otherwise get because they can't pay for it.

A person who went bankrupt had a way to pay for his medical needs - namely his assets.

Would you want a millionaire to pay for his medical needs out of his own pocket before getting taxpayers to pick up the cost? Then for justice to be blind everyone must pay for what they can before taxpayers pick up the cost.

If a person goes bankrupt paying for a medical need that is unfortunate but while many argue that it is the governments role to stop people from dying in the street would you really argue that it is the governments role to stop people from losing their assets because they had a large expense - and only some people on top of that?

No way it is the gov job to stop people from losing their money unless someone is taking it from them against their rights.

 

[PLC1]

These two are pretty close:

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

Marx would have said that the means of production was limited to actual factories but I don't see I that way.

France exercises a lot of control over various kinds of production and distribution of various things.

So, France is not a capitalist country, but a socialistic one? I'm not sure that the French would agree with that.

 

[PLC1]

Hello! Insurance is not suppose to pay for pre-existing conditions that is not insurance that is something else. If you want that something else then advocate for it but don't call it insurance or confuse it with the issue.

Your home owners insurance will not pay for a fire you had before they insured your house.

Your auto insurance will not pay for an accident you had before you had the policy.

You health insurance should also not pay for medical problems you had before you had the insurance.

Which is why health insurance is not the answer. Health care is the answer, and it needs to be universal, just like it is in every other advanced nation on Earth.

You know, all of those nations that pay less than we do, yet have a better outcome.

 

[PLC1]

If a person lies to social security about their age and gets medicare should they not later be denied coverage when it is determined that they are too young?

So it is not denials that are wrong but denials for no good reason.

For these there is a system where the gov is supposed to correct the wrong situation. If they are not doing their job blame them.

If a person lies to SS about their age and collects some money, they will pay it back with fines and interest. It would be very difficult to do so, as a birth certificate would have to be used, but should an individual defraud the government in that way, they would pay dearly and would most likely do some jail time.

 

[Dr.Who]

So, France is not a capitalist country, but a socialistic one? I'm not sure that the French would agree with that.

Socialists rarely want to admit it. But if we accept the definition of socialism that socialist use then there would never have been a socialism on the face of the planet.

If socialism is state control of production, how much control needs to be in place for it to be a socialism? Even communist Russia under Lenin never had 100% and never intended to. Lenin just wanted enough control to be in power.

Right now the government of France is the most powerful corporation in the country controlling the majority of the nations production.

France is second only to Sweden in it's government spending, spending nearly 50% of it's GDP. This of course doesn't include government-owned sectors, where the government consumes 22% of the GDP, and additional state controls on production.

In other words, except for Sweden, every other country that actually admits to being a socialism has less government control of the nations spending than France and Sweden is the only socialist country that does have larger gov spending/control of the nations wealth.