Isn't health insurance an example of socialized medicine? We invest our money into a pool so that if we get sick, society (the people vested in the insurance fund) shares the burden of one persons illness. Is that not socialized by definition?
2007-10-25 15:50:12 · 19 answers · asked by deadboyx5 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Seeing as the government doesn't run the insurance companies or the system it really can't be called socialized..........
2007-10-25 15:53:35 · answer #1 · answered by Brian 7 · 7⤊ 7⤋
This capitalistic government has used socialistic programs to its advantage for many years. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. This is no different. No one will be erecting a statue of Karl Marx in Washington because we get UHC. All the screaming about "socialism" is conservative hysteria at work again. It makes for good character assassination fodder, and throwing mud they manufacture themselves is their favorite thing to do.
This whole SCHIP thing is a great example. Bush was ready to okay it when it met his income limit. But when they raised it all of sudden he's putting it down as "socialized" medicine. Gee, wasn't it already "socialized" medicine or did it just magically become "socialized" when the Dems wanted to raise the income limit by $20K?
2007-10-25 23:47:42 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
They both have a third party paying the bills but with socialized medicine everyone would receive equal treatment, but not make equal payments. This would enviably create a situation where someone "undeserving" would get health care, and there is nothing the GOP base hates more than helping anyone who is "undeserving". Rush even believes there are undeserving sick children,
2007-10-26 00:59:42 · answer #3 · answered by meg 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
So Chi Guy, you're self employed? Which corporation do you work for? And if they don't make a profit, guess you'll just be sheet out of luck!
Your definition is scewed. It's about capitalism and free choice. If you want health insurance, get an education and a better paying job. If you want socialism, move to Canada that way you can come south of the border to get better medical care!
2007-10-25 22:58:37 · answer #4 · answered by Doc 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because the group purchasing the insurance pays THEIR money to buy the insurance. As opposed to someone else's money paying for it.
Socialism is a system where the producers pay the way for the non-producers. We have way yonder too much socialism in the US today. Means based is a nice way to say socialism. If you get an education, work, and do well, then the government will penalize you by making you pay more taxes that the person who refuses to be educated, cannot or will not hold a job, and the fool government feeds them, houses them and charges the producers the bill.
Let them starve, they won't. If it comes down to starving or working, by gosh, they will work. But, you can't provide them food for free, because they won't work. Simple as that.
Why do you people keep wanting to repeat the same old failed experiment? Hey, McFly, anyone in there? It don't work!
2007-10-25 23:15:48 · answer #5 · answered by plezurgui 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋
well... socialized in a technical manner of speaking (as in provided from a pool of money from the many to the few), but many consider "socialized" to mean "provided by government with no choice"...
depends on which definition you want to go by...
the main difference seems to be:
a. one is voluntary (the U.S. system)... but does anyone NOT want health insurance?
b. one costs much more per person (the current system in the U.S.)
2007-10-25 23:15:16 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Well considering every lib/dem suggestion about universal health care utilizes private insurance carriers, only subsidizing lower income families to pay their premiums, that is actually what they ARE doing(calling insurance socialized medicine).
2007-10-25 22:55:13 · answer #7 · answered by avail_skillz 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Health insurance, if available to you, is voluntary. No one is forced into purchasing it. If you do purchase health insurance, you are afforded options as to your primary health care provider.
National health care seems to be another case of the Dems. wanting to think for the citizens.
2007-10-25 23:00:58 · answer #8 · answered by DOIN' RIGHT AINT GOT NO END 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
But, as it is now, we at least have a choice of which of those pools we want to be a part of. We can shop around, pick what is the best for us.
2007-10-25 22:58:29 · answer #9 · answered by steddy voter 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Insurance isn't technically a socialist system as you are not forced (unless you live in Taxachusetts) to contribute to an insurance company. And when benefits are paid out, it is from a collection of people who have knowingly contributed their money for that use.
2007-10-25 22:55:56 · answer #10 · answered by Wonderputz 3 · 3⤊ 2⤋
It would be far more efficient if the government hired actuaries and took over the role of the insurance industry.
Eliminating profit margins and overpaid executives would benefit consumers.
.
2007-10-25 23:14:31 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋