• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

AHHH! The beauty of Socialism unplugged!

I can easily give you pro's and con's on both systems.

"The Cons of Socialized Medicine
People need to make sure that in every medical system they use to engage with, they are always ready with the possible consequences that this might be giving. It is a must that before deciding, you must be equipped with all the data and information before getting in touch with the medical system. Here are some of the disadvantages that this socialized system might give:

• The degree and quality of the health care services that hospitals offer will decrease. It is because this socialized medicine is being run by the government. Hence, they have the power to control this health care system. They will be the one controlling everything regarding the health services they are providing the people.
• With the control given to the government, patients tend to wait for longer hours before they are being rendered by the health service that they are aiming for."

And if the degree and quality of health services decrease, you will watch your loved one die.

For less than the average American pays you can get:

a) Universal healthcare
b) Additional private coverage which negates any of you criticisms

What are the advantages of paying more for less?
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
What are the pros of paying more taxpayer money per capita for the US version of public healthcare than say the German one ?

Again... PUBLIC healthcare is the same for the first 6 countries and not too far for the next 4 or 5. LIBERTY gives us the choice to pay more for more services.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
For less than the average American pays you can get:

a) Universal healthcare
b) Additional private coverage which negates any of you criticisms

What are the advantages of paying more for less?



I pay less than 400 a month for two -- and it is not government health-care. That is "less" and gives me "MORE". Your point?

Maybe, countries could be paying less on healthcare if it was a free market?
 
Last edited:
Again... PUBLIC healthcare is the same for the first 6 countries and not too far for the next 4 or 5. LIBERTY gives us the choice to pay more for more services.

You keep missing the point that these countries get excellent universal healthcare for the same price you are paying not to get it.

LIBERTY gives folk that choice elsewhere, just it costs less to exercise your liberty and have the safety net of universal coverage should you or you loved ones meet some bad luck.

I pay less than 400 a month for two -- and it is not government health-care. That is "less" and gives me "MORE". Your point?

On top of paying the same tax dollars to pay for government spending that Germans pay for excellent universal public healthcare... You pay for that too.

So what are the pros about paying more for ****y US public healthcare than the Germans do for their excellent universal healthcare?
 

Sand Dancer

Crazy Cat Lady
All one has to do is watch the news and take the object lesson of Venezuela and Socialisms failure there.

Venezuela is a dictatorship. Why not mention the happiest, healthiest and safest countries, like ones in western and central Europe?
 
Last edited:

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Is that why our infrastructure is a mess and the postal service is still asking for more money?
Our infrastructure is a mess because we've lost our democracy, industry is now in control and there's no profit in maintenance of the public sector.
• The degree and quality of the health care services that hospitals offer will decrease. It is because this socialized medicine is being run by the government. Hence, they have the power to control this health care system. They will be the one controlling everything regarding the health services they are providing the people.
This is only a problem with a government that's been bought out by bankers and industry; a government divorced from The People and democracy.
In a democratic government, being run by The People, it's hard to imagine people would not support such a popular and useful social service.
• With the control given to the government, patients tend to wait for longer hours before they are being rendered by the health service that they are aiming for."
A common but false trope, and what does "to the government" mean? Is the government an arm of industry, or is it us? Do we have a democracy, or an oligarchy?
And if the degree and quality of health services decrease, you will watch your loved one die.
But we already have the worst health care outcomes in the developed world, as well as the highest costs. Doctors must already negotiate with insurance companies in developing treatment plans.
The more privatized the health care system, the more expensive it will be.
Why can't health care be part of the commons?
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
What are the pros of paying more taxpayer money per capita for the US version of public healthcare than say the German one ?
More profits?
Again... PUBLIC healthcare is the same for the first 6 countries and not too far for the next 4 or 5. LIBERTY gives us the choice to pay more for more services.
"Public" healthcare is not the same. The US already pays as much in public, tax funds as some other countries pay for their entire healthcare systems, yet still requires expensive insurance policies and out-of-pocket expensive to access whats available elsewhere for free.
You're at Liberty to pay twice as much for services other countries cover with tax revenues equal to our own. You're at liberty to pay extra, out-of-pocket fees for what's automatically available elsewhere.

Government is supposed to exists as an extension of the people's will. Its prime directive is supposed to be to serve the interests of the people, not maintain markets.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Yes, Metis, there are many different mixes throughout the world. Even the US is not strictly a capitalist society. But are the Scandinavian countries really socialist countries? We noted that some have tried a democratic-socialism but realizing they need to move more to the capitalist position.

Which socialist country is really driven by people ownership? Or which business is State owned but worker controlled?
The degree of "socialism" worldwide varies, which is one reason what attacks on "socialism", which some here treat as if it's monolithic, is a problem because it ain't monolithic. [maybe look up "socialism" in Wikipedia to see various forms of it] My cousins in Sweden enjoy a system which I would give my left um er big toe to have, and I can go through what they have if you'd like. Of course, they pay for it, and the cost is pretty high, but this is what they have continually voted in, but with adjustments. Some of those adjustments have been to make certain industries more capitalistic, but they even do that the "Swedish way", namely with much significant regulation and oversight.

Sweden has what is called "cradle to grave protection", which is why many call them a "socialist country". In reality, they, like all other countries in today's world, have what we call in anthropology a "mixed economy".

Anyhow, have a very Happy Father's Day!
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
And if the degree and quality of health services decrease, you will watch your loved one die.
Then why is it that westernized-industrialized countries that have it have better outcomes, according to W.H.O. stats, and yet they pay less than we do, plus they have universal coverage that we don't have?

I just got back from Canada, and I've studied their system and talked with many people there over the years, and I have yet to run across a single Canadian that would want to trade their system for ours. No one in Canada will go bankrupt because of healthcare, plus they have universal coverage.

Our system is bankrupting people, with an estimated 70 of personal bankruptcies being at least partially caused by high personal costs. The Republican "solution": eliminate the ACA so more than 20 million more Americans will lose their insurance. Is that something Jesus would advocate, so that even more Americans would suffer and die than what we have now?
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
BTW, the driving force with our medical coverage in today's U.S.A. is not individual choice nor the government-- it's the insurance companies. And is there real "competition"? If you're having a heart attack, and you going to canvas hospitals to seek out those with the lowest costs and better outcomes while clutching your chest?

IMO, I prefer a mix, namely for those who have insurance through work or through their own pay, that's fine; but then at least we should be caring enough to have in place good medical care for those who may not be as fortunate.

IOW, I feel that we should be at least as caring and civilized enough to act as "Good Samaritans".
 

Shadow Link

Active Member
The actual demand for health & medical services reflects an immense array of variables, in constant flux and extremely difficult to fully understand, as they are very individualistically determined. We may catalog some factors that play a discernable role in influencing the level of medical services, which a particular subject may seek at any moment, beyond those flowing from the actual presence or suspicion of an identifiable medical problem. While those flowing from actual problems--and an awareness of potential solutions--may tend to be the most significant, the ever greater injection of Government into health care has brought with it identifiable political factors, which effect the demand for medical services. Those given to expect an "entitlement" to subsidized health care, will have an increased tendency to demand same; while, as a consequence of that tendency, others may be more inclined to treat themselves--or turn to alternative forms of medicine--to avoid the resulting congestion at public & quasi-public medical facilities.

Economic conditions--always in flux, both in the macro (aggregated) & individual case--will have a major influence as to the extent of demand for medical services; determinative in some situations for those who expect to pay their own way, yet with little effect on those who feel entitled to free care. But the effect, here, is not just from the immediate impact on a subject individual's finances. General conditions, and resulting perceptions, can have profound effects on future anticipations.

While "Mipips" may disdain discussion of racial & ethnic factors, it is well understood that genes affect susceptibility to various medical problems, as well as a body's ability to avoid others. But there are other ethnic factors, whether gene or culture driven--and of course genes influence culture, not the other way around--which are in play here. A people who tend to be reserved, stoical or very thrifty, will tend to spend less money for health care. This factor is not generally acknowledged, when the proponents of more Federal involvement in American medical services & health care compare costs in America with those in other lands. Yet it certainly must be considered by anyone who intends to be at all objective in his analysis.

Other psychological determinants would include religious beliefs, as well as the whole gamut--that pulsating dynamic of attention grabbing phenomena, and the more subtle or subliminal--of factors that may influence people to be more or less eager to seek medical services, whether of a diagnostic, preventive or therapeutic, form; or, alternatively--and perhaps inversely--competing health promoting regimens.

While perhaps tangential, we might here acknowledge a logical fallacy, employed by some supporters of Federal control over the distribution of medical services in America: An attempt to attribute causation to what is more a parallel effect than cause of a perceived "problem," the citation of a greater mortality rate among the uninsured, as opposed to those with adequate coverage. We do not suggest that having good insurance may not induce an individual to more readily address a problem, which might indeed be life threatening; but it does not therefore follow, that not having insurance is the principle reason for a lower life expectancy among those who go without insurance. Consider:

Those who can afford, but elect to forgo medical insurance, are not likely to be among those who employ medical services on a regular or recommended basis. Their lack of insurance & the consequences of untreated conditions are not related as cause & effect, but as parallel effects of a given attitude or temperament. Those who cannot afford medical insurance, are also less likely to afford a healthy diet, or healthy general living conditions--for example avoiding overly congested living areas--as those who can. While there may be some causal relationship, here, in addition to the parallel effect arising from a general lack of resources, the causal relationship is not so clear as to justify the argument being made; especially, when one considers, also, the fact that physicians, by sacred oath, have never required payment to treat the indigent. The actual bone of contention is not really insurance at all, but the inequality of man--both material & non-material--which has always been the real target of Leftwing movements. - Flax
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The degree of "socialism" worldwide varies, which is one reason what attacks on "socialism", which some here treat as if it's monolithic, is a problem because it ain't monolithic. [maybe look up "socialism" in Wikipedia to see various forms of it] My cousins in Sweden enjoy a system which I would give my left um er big toe to have, and I can go through what they have if you'd like. Of course, they pay for it, and the cost is pretty high, but this is what they have continually voted in, but with adjustments. Some of those adjustments have been to make certain industries more capitalistic, but they even do that the "Swedish way", namely with much significant regulation and oversight.

Sweden has what is called "cradle to grave protection", which is why many call them a "socialist country". In reality, they, like all other countries in today's world, have what we call in anthropology a "mixed economy".

Anyhow, have a very Happy Father's Day!
As I understand it, the "cost" of a socialized economy has been overblown by right wing critics. Yes, personal taxes are higher in the "socialist" Nordic countries -- but so are wages.

In Denmark, for example, the starting wage at McDonalds is ~ $20.00/h. Individual disposable income is usually greater than it is in the low-tax US. Minimum wage workers contribute to the tax base rather than detract from it in welfare, food stamps or housing subsidies, as they do in the US. Moreover, they don't have to worry about catastrophic healthcare crises or homelessness, and, should they want to go back to school to "improve themselves," they're financially able to do so. Tuition is not only free, but students receive stipends.

The "cost," of socialism isn't so high as detractors say.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
As I understand it, the "cost" of a socialized economy has been overblown by right wing critics. Yes, personal taxes are higher in the "socialist" Nordic countries -- but so are wages.

In Denmark, for example, the starting wage at McDonalds is ~ $20.00/h. Individual disposable income is usually greater than it is in the low-tax US. Minimum wage workers contribute to the tax base rather than detract from it in welfare, food stamps or housing subsidies, as they do in the US. Moreover, they don't have to worry about catastrophic healthcare crises or homelessness, and, should they want to go back to school to "improve themselves," they're financially able to do so. Tuition is not only free, but students receive stipends.

The "cost," of socialism isn't so high as detractors say.
Exactly.

The first time I was in Amsterdam, I talked with a woman who was brought in and lived most of her life here in the States but ended up moving to the Netherlands after she retired, and she said much the same thing you posted above. Yes, taxes are quite a bit higher there, but you don't have anything to worry about in terms of healthcare, daycare, dental, education for your kids or grandkids,, etc.

Like Sweden, they basically have what's called "cradle to grave security". We certainly can't say the same here in the States, which undoubtedly helps to explain why Americans so frequently complain about high stress and why so many are on medication for it.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
More profits?

"Public" healthcare is not the same. The US already pays as much in public, tax funds as some other countries pay for their entire healthcare systems, yet still requires expensive insurance policies and out-of-pocket expensive to access whats available elsewhere for free.
You're at Liberty to pay twice as much for services other countries cover with tax revenues equal to our own. You're at liberty to pay extra, out-of-pocket fees for what's automatically available elsewhere.

Prescription cause bankruptcy instead. It is in the top 10 reasons (along with obvious reasons) in Canada.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
When I'm in Canada, which is quite often [I was there last weekend and I'll be there again this upcoming weekend, for example], I see a lot of American cars near pharmacies, and one of those cars is quite occasionally mine.

Here in the States, roughly 70% of personal bankruptcies relate to medical costs.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Disposable income in these "socialist" countries is at least on a par with disposable income for US workers. The difference is, in the socialist countries you don't have to worry about catastrophic medical bills, homelessness, or sending your kids to college. In these socialist countries people needn't fear job loss, they aren't stuck in a job, unable to move into better jobs or get a degree.

It's interesting how Americans are so obsessed with their 'freedom' -- which they don't really have to any great degree. They protest too much.
Do they think other countries are less free than they?

Many are wage slaves stuck in place on the social ladder, in a land of non-opportunity. Many hate the institution best positioned to deliver the security they crave -- "big government."
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
BTW, if capitalism is supposedly working out so well here in the USA, then why do we have 40% of all prisoners in the world within our borders? Why such a high suicide rate? Why such a high drug addiction rate? Why so many on anti-depressants?

For a very wealthy country, relatively speaking, we don't seem to be doing that well with our own people. I wonder what's causing so much of this stress? :rolleyes:
 
Top