Socialism good or bad?

[Weather Man]

Controlling the costs of prescription drugs: couldn't agree more. This is a "socialism" way of thinking, though ; ). We've tried to let the free market control Rx prices...it doesn't work, and our people are getting bent over the table every day by those greedy sons of bitches. There are many drugs out there were US Citizens pay 200-500% more than in other countries. It's disgusting.

There is nothing free market about our drug system. It is highly regulated and extremely convoluted by design. The drug company lobbyists pay a LOT of money to keep it that way.

Sponsored

 

[Grintch]

None of that really makes the point about healthcare back home. The stat that matters there is that without any further redistribution of wealth we already spend twice as much on healthcare as any other nation, but our access and overall services don’t reflect that. So, the challenge to our elected officials, healthcare professionals and insurance companies is to figure out how to address that issue without spending more money--or taking more money out of taxpayers' pockets.

Yes, because the experts at spending our money and never balancing the budget will suddenly get everything right if we just give them more/complete power and control. Despite the fact that every step down this road has produced the opposite result. More government control/involvement in health care historically = higher cost and often poorer care.

Maybe it is the whole US approach to "entitlement programs". One they are in place they are holy and cannot be cut or reduced in any way.

 

[Grintch]

There is nothing free market about our drug system. It is highly regulated and extremely convoluted by design. The drug company lobbyists pay a LOT of money to keep it that way.

How else will our congressmen & women all make ~$1,000,000 per year with their $200,000 full time jobs?

 

[Docscurlock]

How else will our congressmen & women all make ~$1,000,000 per year with their $200,000 full time jobs?

Now we see the real villians here, drug companies, lobbyists and politicians. Its not a left, right thing its wrong/right thing. The answer to utopia is not socialism, you can't expect some to pay for all. It would only work if everyone would do their fair share and not use more than they need, not happening with basic human nature. It reminds me of the scene in Enemy at the Gate where the political officer tries to get the the hero sniper killed and realizes its because he's lusting after the girlfriend. He realizes that socialism/communism will never work because people all want what someone else has, be it money, a car, a hot girlfriend or the best seat at the table. We are all better off providing for ourselves.

Oh, and now AOC is fantasizing and hero worshiping herself by making up podcasts from the future that explain how the world was saved by the New Green Deal. What a fruitcake.

 

[Grintch]

Yes polititions are the villains. So why would anyone trust the villain to do the right thing and manage their health care/tax dollars well? When they have proven over and over again that they won't.

The right should worry about Sanders or Cortez being in charge, and the left should be equally afraid of Trump being in charge.

Solution, lets stop giving the government more power and more money and take care of ourselves. Personal responsibility verses the nanny state.

 

[Caballus]

The point being that for people from these other countries to step up and say why can't we do what they are doing is ridiculous. The sheer scope and size of a socialized medicine program in this country should alone make it an impossibility. Skynet (from the Terminator movie) wouldn't be able to compute the accounts receivable and payable on a nationwide medicare system. If we could control costs our current system would work better. Our government is never good at controlling costs. Can you even imagine the cost of government staffing to run medicare for all? Even the Obamacare website was a disaster for people.

Agree that it would be impossible (or at least ill-advised) to try to duplicate another country's system, regardless to size. However, it's also a mistake to completely ignore potentially useful practices that can be used to improve our system--not talking socialized medicine specifically, but the medical care system overall.

"Defense spending." I never made the argument that other countries don't spend money on defense, they just don't spend enough. That's where they get extra money for pie in the sky social programs. Problem for us is we pay the tab for their lack of spending.

Agree, (some) Alliance members need to spend more, no doubt; however, there is a lot more to defense spending than the recent bumper sticker phrases account for. 2%, whether agreed to or not, is misleading and not a good metric (in my opinion). In theory, if you spend 2% on your own defense, you can meet your Article 3 obligation and contribute to collective defense requirements. In practice, it's an arbitrary number that does not account for contributions in kind or security and infrastructure investments made via the EU rather than NATO.

A few considerations:
1) Four of the nations on the list of 10 (Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, Switzerland) are not NATO Allies.

2) Previously, underwriting transatlantic defense was in our interest. Presidents Eisenhower and Reagan, in particular, wanted to the Europeans to focus on establishing strong, interdependent economies as a means of preventing future conflict among them (and us).

3) With spending comes influence. Our defense investments in Europe are about more than transatlantic defense. Our sites and bases provide logistical support for global operations--the so-called "unsinkable aircraft carrier" effect. Imagine a country establishing a military base in the U.S., complete with families, access to social services, tax exemptions, etc. and then being allowed to use that base to conduct global operations on a daily basis.

4) No Alliance member has the global interests or need for global reach that we have. They don't need, nor do we want them to have, anywhere near the capabilities we have. If you are Albania or Montenegro, how much should you really spend on defense? If you are Luxembourg, how do you translate 2% of your GDP into responsible defense spending?

Do we go to the hospital twice as much as the average Canadian or Norwegian? Do you realize we spend twice as much as a country on healthcare and most of our expenditure isn't even counted there because most of our spending is through private insurance and out of pocket. The problem is, our healthcare costs over twice as much to buy. Whether the money comes from our own pockets, insurance companies or through a complete government run single payer system the fact is it costs too much. We have to fix that. Headline from Fox News today says Bernie's medicare for all will cost every family $20k more in taxes. Who can afford that? As you stated above 44% of Americans don't pay federal income tax, some even get more money back than was withheld from them. So that leaves the extra $20k in the hands of the 56% of people who do pay, so the total is more like $38k for each. It would destroy our economy. And for all you NATO allies and others, where our economy goes, so does yours.

Agree that the root issue is cost (and by association, access)--medicine, care, insurance, etc. Not into government-directed cost control, however. Also not into increasing taxes while costs remain steady or increase. So, there is the dilemma, and the area where the majority of focus needs to go. As for going to the doctor twice as much, I don't know. I do know that we consume more (legal) prescription drugs than any other nation (per capita) and are in poorer overall health--obese, grossly obese, depressed, autistic, ADHD, etc, etc, etc...

 

[Caballus]

Yes, because the experts at spending our money and never balancing the budget will suddenly get everything right if we just give them more/complete power and control. Despite the fact that every step down this road has produced the opposite result. More government control/involvement in health care historically = higher cost and often poorer care.

Maybe it is the whole US approach to "entitlement programs". One they are in place they are holy and cannot be cut or reduced in any way.

Good points. The "twice as much" figure is what our government spends on healthcare compared to other governments, not what private citizens are spending. So, if the government is already spending twice as much and we are not getting twice the result, "we the people" need to follow the money across the government and private sector to identify the specific disconnect. Otherwise, we will continue to jump from system to system and protect (or eliminate) holy grail entitlement programs without any measurable change. Where, exactly, does that twice as much per capita go and how does the path compare to what other (far more socialized) governments are spending?

 

[Docscurlock]

Agree that it would be impossible (or at least ill-advised) to try to duplicate another country's system, regardless to size. However, it's also a mistake to completely ignore potentially useful practices that can be used to improve our system--not talking socialized medicine specifically, but the medical care system overall..

Maybe the one useful practice that we can pilfer is the cost control of prescription medications. I also think medical malpractice suits are much harder to prove and not so likely to have huge payouts in european countries. Lots of rich lawyers in this country that made their millions on the backs of healthcare professionals. I would like someone from europe to chime in and let us know how they handle lawsuits and malpractice claims over there.

Agree, (some) Alliance members need to spend more, no doubt; however, there is a lot more to defense spending than the recent bumper sticker phrases account for. 2%, whether agreed to or not, is misleading and not a good metric (in my opinion). In theory, if you spend 2% on your own defense, you can meet your Article 3 obligation and contribute to collective defense requirements. In practice, it's an arbitrary number that does not account for contributions in kind or security and infrastructure investments made via the EU rather than NATO.

A few considerations:
1) Four of the nations on the list of 10 (Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, Switzerland) are not NATO Allies.

2) Previously, underwriting transatlantic defense was in our interest. Presidents Eisenhower and Reagan, in particular, wanted to the Europeans to focus on establishing strong, interdependent economies as a means of preventing future conflict among them (and us).

3) With spending comes influence. Our defense investments in Europe are about more than transatlantic defense. Our sites and bases provide logistical support for global operations--the so-called "unsinkable aircraft carrier" effect. Imagine a country establishing a military base in the U.S., complete with families, access to social services, tax exemptions, etc. and then being allowed to use that base to conduct global operations on a daily basis.

4) No Alliance member has the global interests or need for global reach that we have. They don't need, nor do we want them to have, anywhere near the capabilities we have. If you are Albania or Montenegro, how much should you really spend on defense? If you are Luxembourg, how do you translate 2% of your GDP into responsible defense spending?

I realize that not all countries in the comparison were NATO members it just so happened that a majority were thus making the point that we cover a lot of their cost for defense. We also include NZ and Australia under our defense umbrella but most likely through Pacific command. Sweden and Switzerland are also in NATOs sphere of influence, you can be sure if there was soviet aggression, we would annex those countries. No way we would let the Soviets have real estate in Europe's back yard. If we spend the money on guns to protect everyone else we don't have it for social programs. My libertarian streak tends to tell me we should let Europe go piss up their own back and keep the money on this side of the Atlantic. On top of being against socialism in any form, being the world's policeman is another place our government needs to be reigned in. Let Europe take care of Europe and we can focus on North and South America. As far as I'm concerned Asia and Australia can go bugger themselves also. But it's probably a good thing I'm not King in this country because "Make America First" would have a new meaning for everyone.

Agree that the root issue is cost (and by association, access)--medicine, care, insurance, etc. Not into government-directed cost control, however. Also not into increasing taxes while costs remain steady or increase. So, there is the dilemma, and the area where the majority of focus needs to go. As for going to the doctor twice as much, I don't know. I do know that we consume more (legal) prescription drugs than any other nation (per capita) and are in poorer overall health--obese, grossly obese, depressed, autistic, ADHD, etc, etc, etc...

Lots of other problems exist for sure but "medicare for all" won't fix any of them. Putting crazy ass Bernie and loony AOC in charge of our lives could only make things worse for us.

 

[Docscurlock]

Good points. The "twice as much" figure is what our government spends on healthcare compared to other governments, not what private citizens are spending. So, if the government is already spending twice as much and we are not getting twice the result, "we the people" need to follow the money across the government and private sector to identify the specific disconnect. Otherwise, we will continue to jump from system to system and protect (or eliminate) holy grail entitlement programs without any measurable change. Where, exactly, does that twice as much per capita go and how does the path compare to what other (far more socialized) governments are spending?

I'm not sure if that's just government spending or total but it is still 2X the amount of everyone else. If we got that number in line with Europe then medicare for all would only be 16 trillion over 10 years or 7% of total GDP. That might even be doable but the way it is now would kill our economy. We would all be sustenance farmers again until the Chinese own everything and we would then be slaves.

 

[Caballus]

Maybe the one useful practice that we can pilfer is the cost control of prescription medications. I also think medical malpractice suits are much harder to prove and not so likely to have huge payouts in european countries. Lots of rich lawyers in this country that made their millions on the backs of healthcare professionals. I would like someone from europe to chime in and let us know how they handle lawsuits and malpractice claims over there.

1. Legal insurance is common (relatively cheap), which pays court costs and legal fees in the event of a suit.
2. There are caps on law suits.

I realize that not all countries in the comparison were NATO members it just so happened that a majority were thus making the point that we cover a lot of their cost for defense. We also include NZ and Australia under our defense umbrella but most likely through Pacific command. Sweden and Switzerland are also in NATOs sphere of influence, you can be sure if there was soviet aggression, we would annex those countries. No way we would let the Soviets have real estate in Europe's back yard. If we spend the money on guns to protect everyone else we don't have it for social programs. My libertarian streak tends to tell me we should let Europe go piss up their own back and keep the money on this side of the Atlantic. On top of being against socialism in any form, being the world's policeman is another place our government needs to be reigned in. Let Europe take care of Europe and we can focus on North and South America. As far as I'm concerned Asia and Australia can go bugger themselves also. But it's probably a good thing I'm not King in this country because "Make America First" would have a new meaning for everyone.

Of course we have cooperative security agreements with New Zealand and Australia. Australia in particular contributes substantially to our defense infrastructure.

Treaties and cooperative security agreements do not go through GCCs; i.e., Indo-PACOM, EUCOM, AFRICOM...

Annex Sweden and Switzerland??? Like the NAZIs annexed Austria? Really? Soviets? What soviets?

Interesting theory. How would we protect our lines of communications if we bring everything home? Will the Russians become less aggressive if we come home? Chinese? N. Koreans?...

 

[Docscurlock]

1. Legal insurance is common (relatively cheap), which pays court costs and legal fees in the event of a suit.
2. There are caps on law suits.

How does European malpractice and business insurance stack up to ours? I could probably find out but you seem to have some knowledge of these things. By decreasing the cost of insurance and capping lawsuits, we could decrease the cost of healthcare. Those costs are passed along to the consumer in the form of health care bills.

Of course we have cooperative security agreements with New Zealand and Australia. Australia in particular contributes substantially to our defense infrastructure.

russia
Australia $27.5 bil US dollrs vs US 1.7 trillion The most likely aggressors to Australia would be Russia 66 billion, China 228 billion, India 64 billion.

Treaties an

d cooperative security agreements do not go through GCCs; i.e., Indo-PACOM, EUCOM, AFRICOM...

Point taken, I was at work and didn't look up the exact method of security cooperation agreements through our respective countries. I am simply using defense spending as a large difference as to where our taxes go compared to other countries.

Annex Sweden and Switzerland??? Like the NAZIs annexed Austria? Really? Soviets? What soviets?

Interesting theory. How would we protect our lines of communications if we bring everything home? Will the Russians become less aggressive if we come home? Chinese? N. Koreans?...

Again point taken, I was speaking tongue in cheek and reverted back to cold war times. I certainly am not advocating annexation of a European country (in fact if you recall I said "let the Europeans take care of the Europeans"). It was a poor choice of words to describe that even thought they aren't officially part of NATO, they do derive some security from it. But this discussion is now straying into geopolitical nation building strategies and defense pacts when we should be talking about how to decrease our health care costs to a level where a person isn't financially devastated by an illness without also experiencing the loss of freedom by having our government control yet another aspect of our lives.

 

[Caballus]

How does European malpractice and business insurance stack up to ours? I could probably find out but you seem to have some knowledge of these things. By decreasing the cost of insurance and capping lawsuits, we could decrease the cost of healthcare. Those costs are passed along to the consumer in the form of health care bills.

Exact numbers I'd have to look up, but in general you are right. Caps on malpractice decrease cost of healthcare, as do approaches to malpractice. Several countries (Scandinavians for example) keep malpractice out of the court and use a review process that focuses on correcting the problem. Patients (or surviving families) may be compensated, but not nearly in the sums we see at home. Not sure the system would work in the States, but it's a potential alternative.

As for insurance, I was referring to the insurance private citizens have. Just as we all have car and house insurance, a lot of Europeans (depending on country--Europe is not monolithic) have legal insurance. [/QUOTE]

russia
Australia $27.5 bil US dollrs vs US 1.7 trillion The most likely aggressors to Australia would be Russia 66 billion, China 228 billion, India 64 billion.

Treaties an
Point taken, I was at work and didn't look up the exact method of security cooperation agreements through our respective countries. I am simply using defense spending as a large difference as to where our taxes go compared to other countries.

Fair enough. My primary point is that comparing our spending to that of other nations is not useful for anything at all--other than bumper sticker slogans. No other country has the breadth of interests we have. Nor do other countries lump as many areas into defense as we do: Example: the White House is serviced largely by the military--cooks, security, communications...the list is long. Our research and development serves all sectors of society. The cost of aircraft carriers, submarines, satellites... Comparing us to others is oranges to tennis balls. We would be better served making comparisons based on specific strategic and operational problems; challenge there is public knowledge and attention span. Specific to Australia, they punch above their weight, especially when it comes to their special operations forces. So, again, defense spending comparisons are for bean counters and those who want to pump more money into industry for little to no return on investment. It's about effects.

Again point taken, I was speaking tongue in cheek and reverted back to cold war times. I certainly am not advocating annexation of a European country (in fact if you recall I said "let the Europeans take care of the Europeans"). It was a poor choice of words to describe that even thought they aren't officially part of NATO, they do derive some security from it. But this discussion is now straying into geopolitical nation building strategies and defense pacts when we should be talking about how to decrease our health care costs to a level where a person isn't financially devastated by an illness without also experiencing the loss of freedom by having our government control yet another aspect of our lives.

Agree. So, to separate the conflated ideas, consider that the US is responsible for about 25% of the world's economy; Europe (whether you slice it as the EU or NATO) is responsible for 25%--so, 50% of the economy between us. Then look at our combined trade. There is a reason we underwrite transatlantic security.

As you noted, this ultimately has nothing to do with healthcare. Our defense spending is not preventing us from spending on healthcare. Regardless to what anyone spends on defense, our government already spends twice as much as European countries spend on healthcare--so, what gives?

 

[Docscurlock]

Exact numbers I'd have to look up, but in general you are right. Caps on malpractice decrease cost of healthcare, as do approaches to malpractice. Several countries (Scandinavians for example) keep malpractice out of the court and use a review process that focuses on correcting the problem. Patients (or surviving families) may be compensated, but not nearly in the sums we see at home. Not sure the system would work in the States, but it's a potential alternative.

As for insurance, I was referring to the insurance private citizens have. Just as we all have car and house insurance, a lot of Europeans (depending on country--Europe is not monolithic) have legal insurance.

Fair enough. My primary point is that comparing our spending to that of other nations is not useful for anything at all--other than bumper sticker slogans. No other country has the breadth of interests we have. Nor do other countries lump as many areas into defense as we do: Example: the White House is serviced largely by the military--cooks, security, communications...the list is long. Our research and development serves all sectors of society. The cost of aircraft carriers, submarines, satellites... Comparing us to others is oranges to tennis balls. We would be better served making comparisons based on specific strategic and operational problems; challenge there is public knowledge and attention span. Specific to Australia, they punch above their weight, especially when it comes to their special operations forces. So, again, defense spending comparisons are for bean counters and those who want to pump more money into industry for little to no return on investment. It's about effects.



Agree. So, to separate the conflated ideas, consider that the US is responsible for about 25% of the world's economy; Europe (whether you slice it as the EU or NATO) is responsible for 25%--so, 50% of the economy between us. Then look at our combined trade. There is a reason we underwrite transatlantic security.

As you noted, this ultimately has nothing to do with healthcare. Our defense spending is not preventing us from spending on healthcare. Regardless to what anyone spends on defense, our government already spends twice as much as European countries spend on healthcare--so, what gives?[/QUOTE]
Interesting website:https://www.healthsystemtracker.org...tin-united-states-124-higher-switzerland_2017

We need to start a M6G commission to study why these price differences exist , forget all this talk of socialized medicine in the States until this is fixed. Of course, once this is fixed we won't need socialized medicine.

 

[Caballus]

Interesting website:https://www.healthsystemtracker.org...tin-united-states-124-higher-switzerland_2017

We need to start a M6G commission to study why these price differences exist , forget all this talk of socialized medicine in the States until this is fixed. Of course, once this is fixed we won't need socialized medicine.

Lived in Switzerland for a few years--interesting (complicated) place.

I think you just hit the nail on the head. Common citizens, even us motor heads, need to demand straight, logical facts. Take the political parties, personalities and labels out of it, clearly state our principles and demand complete, logical explanations. Requires us to stop outsourcing our thinking to elected officials and to recognize that we can (must) compromise as long as we don't violate principles.

Interesting fact about Switzerland--any citizen can start a petition to launch a referendum that overrides a parliamentary (congressional) decision--not uncommon.

 

[Caballus]

By the way, if our government is spending twice as much as other nations on healthcare, and has been for decades, is that not socialized medicine?

Sponsored