Do you think universal healthcare=socialism?

Answer 1

No, people under Capitalism, Socialism, Communism and Fascism can all have free health-care if they want (or not if they chose). It doesn't matter how you collect the cash and redistribute it as long as it is done fairly and efficiently. The real evil is when the middle men, (in America's case, insurance firms, medical companies and lawyers) get their hands on the system and milk it of cash.

It doesn't matter to the sick person if it's the Commissariat, the Politburo, the Sunshine invalid home or the Pope is taking their money and leaving them ill. All they know is that they are sick and broke.

Why can't America, which used to lead the world, do any better than starving the poor and ill? Why use the dollars saved to stuff the already rich with more cash than they can spend?

Answer 2

webster's dictionary defines socialism as any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. Basically, universal healthcare being socialist isn't a matter of opinion. It is indeed socialism because the government both owns and administers it. Additionally, it is paid for mostly by those who earn the most income, then unfairly distributed to those who don't. I'm not unsympathetic to those who make less money, but I'm ideologically against government or societal control of other peoples property. I myself can not afford healthcare, nor could I afford a visit to the hospital, but I would never condone the taking of what belongs to someone else, just because I can't get it myself. That is completely selfish, if people feel so strongly about helping the poor, they should do it through charity, and quit trying to regulate the lives of others. That is an utter abuse of democracy.

Answer 3

I think it does, but only to a very limited degree. I think it's about as socialist as having the government running a pension program for old folks, like they do with Social Security.

Or....it's about as socialist as providing health care and re-education for military veterans. Technically this stuff *isn't* necessary....

But it is the right thing to do. This isn't the *kind* of socialism that undercuts civilization and freedom, that attacks it and tries to replace it with dictatorship. This is the *kind* and *degree* of socialist *policy* that protects society, and keeps us *able and willing* to enjoy our civilization and freedom.

It's basically a social *vaccine*. You give people something, a *little bit* of what they need, so that they don't get so hard-up, mean and desperate that they come back and *take it from you* at gunpoint later. That being "hard-up, mean and desperate", and that "*take it from you* at gunpoint later" sums up the whole and entire difference between a modest socialism and communism (a.k.a. the dictatorship of the mob proletariat). Communism, like most modern dictatorships, is a reaction to society *going too far* against its poor and working people in one direction, and as such, as a reaction it *itself* goes too far.

A modest socialism, however, acts as a vaccine against that, by keeping people from becoming "hard-up, mean and desperate" in the first place. Most rational people won't steal if they have jobs, right? Ok then, it's the same principle here.

At some point, you do have to do what *all* of our Developed World Peers, yes, all of them, Western Europe, Austrailia, Canada *and also* Japan do: you have to invest a *little bit* of time, money and effort into poorer people and into Preserving Social Order and keeping people from becoming hard-up, mean and desperate.

It wasn't some evil "socialist plot" when we did a small, humble favor for our elderly, was it? It wasn't some plot when we did the same for our veterans, was it? It *isn't* some plot when we fund public schools so *ALL* children can get some education, learn how to do maths, read and write....

So why is a univeral healthcare plan for *our citizens* a plot now? All of our peers do this, and they don't complain about not being free....

Just saying.... ^_^

Answer 4

It is more like universal eduction but at this point we do not have universal eduction. Education is primarily funded through school districts and the states, not the Federal government. As a matter of fact we can plainly see the negative impact more Federal involvement has had on education and we want to trust them with our health-care? That seems very foolish.

Answer 5

No, and only those who have affordable health care think it is.

37 million children have no health care, so I guess in our "civilized" society, that's just tough luck. They should find a way to pay for it.

Think about this too. Guess how businesses pass on the cost of health care for their employees? You got it, YOU pay for it, in higher prices for goods and services. So, we already have a form of socialized health care. It just hidden.

Think about it.

Answer 6

it might be communism but it works
our country is falling apart and we are about to be in second or third place in the world not first
people to help each other like this for example is helping someone you dont know, you feel good, not kickin them to the curb knowing you can do something, some way with our gov. they are kicking people they dont want. (poor) to the curb

Answer 7

It's socialistic, but universal health care alone is not socialism.

Answer 8

Universal healthcare would be a disaster.

Insurance companies and doctors need to get their act together so everyone can afford health care...but it doesn't need to be a worldwide planned thing.

Answer 9

I'll take it a step further and say that universal healthcare=communism.

Answer 10

yes. socialism and communism are great theory's but...humans are selfish and it doesnt work with us.
and if you dont like socialism you better NOT vote for hilary fvcking clinton. cause shes all for it.