The Truth About Socialism

[twjr]

The question I was asked was why I wouldn't support it since "I would personally benefit." I'm disputing the claim that I would benefit and offering an opportunity (insurance if you will) for your side to guarantee I would benefit. My position is that not only would I not benefit but that I'd be personally worse off because I'd be paying for the "free care" for others.

But you are already paying for the 'free care' of others and not receiving anything for it. The US spends more per capita on public healthcare than most other OECD countries for services that the majority of the population can't access.

 

[Jaskalas]

And hospitals are being closed due to patients who cannot pay.

Social safety nets, if fully implemented, provide a safer, more secure, and more stable society. The benefit to everyone is IF you do need help it'll be there, always. That there is a limit to the harm and damages that can occur to you finacially.

Hell, just being able to afford to get preventative care. Remove a lump BEFORE you're dying of Stage 3 or Stage 4 cancer. Many people don't have that option today. Should they be dying sick and homeless in the streets, or should this country do something to better itself, and protect its citizens?

Heaven forbid we pay for something that benefits everyone.

 

[dank69]

I have access to timely and best quality care now so there's no plausible way you could say I would "personally benefit" from UHC; you must be confusing me with one of the poors you want to give healthcare to (paid for by folks like me). Since healthcare is a rivalrous good then by definition it's impossible for me to directly benefit from someone else's care (with rare exceptions like vaccination which I support because of the positive externalities). I'm already getting all the healthcare I want so UHC wouldn't allow me to increase my consumption. Indeed others having increased access would directly cost me in multiple ways (the costs I'd assume to pay for their care, more competition and time waiting to get the care I want, probable lower quality, etc) thus it would make me worse off. You are demonstrating the common liberal problem of desiring some social welfare outcome (like "greater access" or whatever) and arguing (wrongly) that's a direct personal benefit to me.

If we go to a system similar to other first world countries you will likely pay less for it than you pay for insurance now and will likely receive better care than you do now. Unless you can explain why the things that work in other countries will not work here?

 

[dank69]

And hospitals are being closed due to patients who cannot pay.

Social safety nets, if fully implemented, provide a safer, more secure, and more stable society. The benefit to everyone is IF you do need help it'll be there, always. That there is a limit to the harm and damages that can occur to you finacially.

Hell, just being able to afford to get preventative care. Remove a lump BEFORE you're dying of Stage 3 or Stage 4 cancer. Many people don't have that option today. Should they be dying sick and homeless in the streets, or should this country do something to better itself, and protect its citizens?

Heaven forbid we pay for something that benefits everyone.

That argument will never work with Glenn. He is one of the only conservatives on this board honest enough to admit he doesn't give a shit about anyone else.

 

[glenn1]

If we go to a system similar to other first world countries you will likely pay less for it than you pay for insurance now and will likely receive better care than you do now. Unless you can explain why the things that work in other countries will not work here?

Right after you explain why it can't work in a single state.

 

[crashtech]

This is pretty far off the rails at this point, but one of the serious problems with single-payer as it might be applied to the US is the stifling of innovation that may occur when things like price controls and care rationing are implemented. Part of the reason care costs so much in the US is that it, among other things, bears the cost of far more innovation than any other country. Again it's back to the analogy of the goose and the golden egg. While the number of uninsured is fairly easy to quantify, the degree to which innovation might be hampered is elusive, but potentially far more significant than we might assume. Whether single-payer might eventually manage to kill or cripple the goose of innovation is something that will be hotly disputed, but rational actors would have to admit the possibility exists.

Given that the US is indisputably a hub of medical innovation, great care and the should be taken in implementing large changes to the system. "First, do no harm" to the pace of medical advancement.

 

[soundforbjt]

Right after you explain why it can't work in a single state.

We may find out, a candidate for IL governor is wanting to offer single payer if he wins.

 

[Jaskalas]

Right after you explain why it can't work in a single state.

Compared to the Fed government, a State does not control the US Dollar, any debt they pickup during the transition period has to be accounted for. They are far smaller, thus losing purchasing power (in bulk), and negotiating power. Prices are likely higher within a smaller system. It can certainly be done, it just won't be ideal in those conditions.

Then honestly? Selfish rats find themselves happy on the top deck of the titanic, and will move so as to avoid the very real up front cost of building the life raft. They'd rather sink and die alone than join others in surviving together. Conscripting all 50 States means there is no abdicating the responsibility of being part of the solution. You see, we believe that “we’re all in this together” is a far better philosophy than “you’re on your own.” Especially when it comes to surviving the coming flood.

And the best way to achieve that, is with the full might and power of the Union.

 

[ElFenix]

But you are already paying for the 'free care' of others and not receiving anything for it. The US Governments in the US spend more per capita on public healthcare than most other OECD countries for services that the majority of the population can't access.

ftfy

glenn1, you're already paying for it. you're then paying for your own private insurance on top of that. makes a lot of sense, doesn't it? why buy the cow when you can pay double for that same cow?

 

[glenn1]

We may find out, a candidate for IL governor is wanting to offer single payer if he wins.

Go for it, I don't wish ill-will to those who want it in their states. I just think you're wildly overstating the benefits and trying to pawn off the costs on others. If you implement and it works as you think it will, other states will be lining up to follow your lead.

Compared to the Fed government, a State does not control the US Dollar, any debt they pickup during the transition period has to be accounted for. They are far smaller, thus losing purchasing power (in bulk), and negotiating power. Prices are likely higher within a smaller system. It can certainly be done, it just won't be ideal in those conditions.

Then honestly? Selfish rats find themselves happy on the top deck of the titanic, and will move so as to avoid the very real up front cost of building the life raft. They'd rather sink and die alone than join others in surviving together. Conscripting all 50 States means there is no abdicating the responsibility of being part of the solution. You see, we believe that “we’re all in this together” is a far better philosophy than “you’re on your own.” Especially when it comes to surviving the coming flood.

And the best way to achieve that, is with the full might and power of the Union.

What responsibility is being abdicated? You guys keep on telling us the red states are dead weight and you're the ones paying for everything, why insist on including others who will only drag down your grand plan?

 

[mikeymikec]

When you make an assertion it’s your obligation to defend it, not mine to prove my disagreement to it. Again, I wouldn’t be gaining new coverage and “per capita average” is irrelevant to my personal spend; therefore explain again how I will absolutlely “personally benefit.” I’ve already explained several ways how I’d be adversely impacted.

You asked us whether you would "benefit from it". You know perfectly well that you left yourself a lot of weasel-room in this style of argument (for example, if you're a teen with no medical conditions and you're in a reasonably safe job, you might not need any significant medical attention for even thirty years), however you show no interest whatsoever in supplying any information in order for us to answer your question. As this is a computer forum, I'll put it in computer terms. You've just gone into the 'general hardware' forum and asked whether people think you should upgrade to the latest xyz hardware, whether your needs for it would benefit from such an upgrade, but then you refuse to give any information about what you're using your computer for, what computer hardware you currently have and what your budget is.

The logical conclusion is that you have no interest in the answer to your question. What I don't understand is why you're still trying to argue your position, perhaps you're trying to convince people that your (clearly stated) position has any merit, despite the fact that you avoid answering most questions that critically analyse your position, or at other times you come out with absurd shit like asking for guarantees and refunds that no healthcare provider in the world would ever give you in your dizziest daydreams.

 

[soulcougher73]

Perhaps you want to explain why you think Capitalism leads to the government taking peoples privately held land then?

bribing gov officials?

 

[soulcougher73]

It's almost as if conservatards have never been to school, or learned how to read or understand meanings of words. We say X, or point you to X and you say its Z. I just don't get it. Probably explains their propensity to be more religious also.

 

[glenn1]

You asked us whether you would "benefit from it". You know perfectly well that you left yourself a lot of weasel-room in this style of argument (for example, if you're a teen with no medical conditions and you're in a reasonably safe job, you might not need any significant medical attention for even thirty years), however you show no interest whatsoever in supplying any information in order for us to answer your question. As this is a computer forum, I'll put it in computer terms. You've just gone into the 'general hardware' forum and asked whether people think you should upgrade to the latest xyz hardware, whether your needs for it would benefit from such an upgrade, but then you refuse to give any information about what you're using your computer for, what computer hardware you currently have and what your budget is.

The logical conclusion is that you have no interest in the answer to your question. What I don't understand is why you're still trying to argue your position, perhaps you're trying to convince people that your (clearly stated) position has any merit, despite the fact that you avoid answering most questions that critically analyse your position, or at other times you come out with absurd shit like asking for guarantees and refunds that no healthcare provider in the world would ever give you in your dizziest daydreams.

So basically you need to do underwriting to tell if I'd benefit or not, which kinda proves my point that it's not insurance. I've already described here before what actually would actually benefit everyone without question and it's not UHC. It's repeal employer-based subsidies for "health insurance" (which is really just prepaid healthcare) and use the savings to fund catastrophic health insurance for all (deductible of $5k or some negotiable figure). Enroll every person in a HSA and subsidize it for the poor to cover typical low-cost/high externality services like vaccinations. Finally establish free clinics for the poor. UHC is a heavyweight solution to solve a problem that requires a lightweight and customer directed solution to reduce costs by forcing cost/benefit choices on the would-be consumers, putting the government is charge of it does the exact opposite. The idea that everyone can and should get the level of healthcare that the well-off can afford is both stupid and not realistic, which is demonstrated everywhere it's tried as some factor is deprioritized. Either you "pay" for your free healthcare in terms of delayed delivery, or lower quality, or whatever.

 

[realibrad]

bribing gov officials?

And that is a function of Capitalism and not the other systems?

 

[soulcougher73]

And that is a function of Capitalism and not the other systems?

Could happen in any system i suppose.

 

[mikeymikec]

So basically you need to do underwriting to tell if I'd benefit or not, which kinda proves my point that it's not insurance. I've already described here before what actually would actually benefit everyone without question and it's not UHC. It's repeal employer-based subsidies for "health insurance" (which is really just prepaid healthcare) and use the savings to fund catastrophic health insurance for all (deductible of $5k or some negotiable figure). Enroll every person in a HSA and subsidize it for the poor to cover typical low-cost/high externality services like vaccinations. Finally establish free clinics for the poor. UHC is a heavyweight solution to solve a problem that requires a lightweight and customer directed solution to reduce costs by forcing cost/benefit choices on the would-be consumers, putting the government is charge of it does the exact opposite. The idea that everyone can and should get the level of healthcare that the well-off can afford is both stupid and not realistic, which is demonstrated everywhere it's tried as some factor is deprioritized. Either you "pay" for your free healthcare in terms of delayed delivery, or lower quality, or whatever.

As I said, you're not interested in an answer, you're interested in your opinion, and if it's not one absurd claim you want to make (e.g. that I would need to underwrite a policy for you), it's another in that if it's not what the most well-off can afford and receive then it's not worth it (and frankly I've never heard of anyone pushing a universal healthcare plan as being "as good as what the well-off can afford"). The fact of the matter is that there are many solutions in place to act as a safety net for the poor, and if you can't guarantee that you'll always be super-rich then perhaps you too might need a safety net some day, and yet you're dismissing all of them outright without the faintest idea what those solutions involve.

 

[mect]

glenn is so worried that he might inadvertently benefit someone else without equal benefit to himself that he is willing to drag society down as a whole to prevent that from happening. But of course its people who support social welfare that are greedy.

 

[realibrad]

Could happen in any system i suppose.

So then how is your response an answer to this question?

Perhaps you want to explain why you think Capitalism leads to the government taking peoples privately held land then?

The question is how does it (capitalism) Lead to...

 

[soulcougher73]

What responsibility is being abdicated? You guys keep on telling us the red states are dead weight and you're the ones paying for everything, why insist on including others who will only drag down your grand plan?

I'm going to go with the "we're all in this together" part of his post as your answer.

 

[glenn1]

I'm going to go with the "we're all in this together" part of his post as your answer.

How many homeless people did you step over while writing that?

 

[bshole]

Right after you explain why it can't work in a single state.

Glenn, we were at one time equivalent to Europe. Now look at us. It is troubling though that it is also growing in Europe as well.

 

[realibrad]

Glenn, we were at one time equivalent to Europe. Now look at us. It is troubling though that it is also growing in Europe as well.

Well keep in mind our healthcare is not the same as their health care. We do many things they do not.

 

[mikeymikec]

Well keep in mind our healthcare is not the same as their health care. We do many things they do not.

That's specific.

 

[Vic]

Just trying to help the ignorant see the truth about the form of government liberals clamor for.

LIBERALISM = AMERICA'S CANCER

Ignorance and bigotry are America's cancer.

Liberalism is the political philosophy that America was founded upon and dedicated to, that proposition that all persons are created equal enshrined in the 2nd paragraph of the Declaration of Independence.
Socialism is an economic practice wherein the means of production are owned by the state.
As you can see, these are clearly two very different ideas. In my experience, the only people trying to tell us that liberalism and socialism are the same thing are those conservatives who are against the proposition that all persons are created equal.