Velly EEEEnteresting.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by awpitt

I guess it’s how each of us defines socialized medicine. I view define socialized medicine as govt run healthcare. Govt doctors, nurses, etc. Govt owned hospitals and clinics. No private insurance companies or medical faculties. Paid for entirely through taxes. In reading the Hillarycare and Barakcare proposals, I couldn’t find anything that talked about healthcare as described above.

I define socialized medicine as government run health care - taxes pay for the bulk of it. "Private" insurance acting virtually only as an arm of government required functions. Hospitals and clinics run by government mandates (of more than just minimum standards). Everything I've read regarding the current Democrat's leading candidates meets this.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Kerad

Nice framing of the question. So if I don't think they lean conservative or constitutionalist, they must be "socialists".

I wasn't trying to frame the question that way. My original question was just for you to provide your take of the candidates. This was just a list of some of the possibilities, not ALL of the possibilities.

They lean "liberal", obviously.

If a Democrat wants to make healthcare available to all Americans, regardless of income level, is that what makes it socialism? Or is it the taxpayer financing of some of this healthcare?

Regardless of who suggests it (Democrat, Independant, Republican), if the taxpayer is footing the bill full time for someone else's health care, as the standard, that's a form of socialism.

What I mean by that is, in my humble opinion, it's right to help someone out who is down on their luck (unemployment insurance, medicaid, etc) as a short-term handout to help people. While I fully believe that we would do better through charities than having the government provide these functions, there is a "general welfare" clause in the constitution that can be misconstrued to mean government provides these functions. The key for me is the temporary part. Once it is the government's normal function to provide healthcare insurance through taxpayer money, you've taken the market out of the equation, and created a socialist form of healthcare. This is not the function of government (again, in my opinion). Is it heartbreaking that there are people out there that can't provide this for themselves? Yes, of course it is. Does that make it a government function (on the federal level)? Of course it does not. Now, the states have the right to provide this, but I don't believe the federal government does.

Do you believe that the federal government has this responsibility/authority? If so, why? I'll tell you that Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution, with the Tenth Amendment, make me believe that they don't.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by awpitt

I guess it’s how each of us defines socialized medicine. I view define socialized medicine as govt run healthcare. Govt doctors, nurses, etc. Govt owned hospitals and clinics. No private insurance companies or medical faculties. Paid for entirely through taxes. In reading the Hillarycare and Barakcare proposals, I couldn’t find anything that talked about healthcare as described above.

...that would be great; a purely government operation you can have access to simply by agreeing to serve the nation.

Of course, I think the free market should still play a role in offering service for a fee, to the user, for those of us not willing to serve.

[awpitt]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

...that would be great; a purely government operation you can have access to simply by agreeing to serve the nation.

Of course, I think the free market should still play a role in offering service for a fee, to the user, for those of us not willing to serve.

Yes, I had socialized healthcare when I was in the Nav.

[awpitt]

Originally Posted by This_person

I define socialized medicine as government run health care - taxes pay for the bulk of it. "Private" insurance acting virtually only as an arm of government required functions. Hospitals and clinics run by government mandates (of more than just minimum standards). Everything I've read regarding the current Democrat's leading candidates meets this.

Like I said, everyone has their own definationof what socialized healthcare means. Each of ours if different and neither of us is the final authority on it. You view the Dem's proposal as socialized medicine, I don't.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by awpitt

Like I said, everyone has their own definationof what socialized healthcare means. Each of ours if different and neither of us is the final authority on it. You view the Dem's proposal as socialized medicine, I don't.

...to a doctor now. There are so many rules and regulations and inane and arcane instructions that must be followed, we pretty much have socialized medicine now and one of the definitions of 'socialized' is government control.

[ImnoMensa]

Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., this morning left open the possibility that, if elected, her government would garnish the wages of people who didn't comply with her health care plan. "We will have an enforcement mechanism, whether it's that or it's some other mechanism through the tax system or automatic enrollments,"
Forget about the cost of government-provided health care, which by itself would be such an enormous expense as to require massive tax hikes and widespread medical service rationing to be even feasible, can you imagine what the enforcement aspect would cost us? It would likely mean a whole new federal agency - likely under an existing branch of the federal government - that would exist for no other reason than to track down those of us who don’t have health insurance and then force us to pay for it.

These are not my words ,but come from a couple of articles I read.

The 2004 Democratic vice presidential nominee would require everyone to have health insurance, much like state requirements for auto insurance for every driver. Both candidates would require businesses to help cover their workers.

Obama's plan retains the private insurance system but injects additional money to pay for expanding coverage. It would also create a National Health Insurance Exchange to monitor insurance companies in offering the coverage.

Those who can't afford coverage would get a subsidy on a sliding scale depending on their income, and virtually all businesses would have to share in the cost of coverage for their workers. The plan is similar to the one covering members of Congress.
Campaign aides estimated the cost of the program at $50 billion to $65 billion a year, financed largely by eliminating tax cuts that are scheduled to expire. President Bush wants to make those cuts permanent.
Obama conceded that the overall cost of the program would be high.

You can call these plans anything you want to call them,but the fatcs are they will be expensive, but to tell the truth I like Obama's plan better. Either way stand by for the ram.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by ImnoMensa

You can call these plans anything you want to call them,but the fatcs are they will be expensive, but to tell the truth I like Obama's plan better. Either way stand by for the ram.

...both of a kind with what Mitt did in Massachusetts. He made it mandatory that every employer insure their people or pay a fine to the state who then provided coverage.

The idea is the more people in the system, the lower the cost. Socialism says make it law. Free markets say make a product people want to buy at a price people are willing to pay.

We're walking right down a path that has never worked well for the people it is presumably intended for.

[awpitt]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

...to a doctor now. There are so many rules and regulations and inane and arcane instructions that must be followed, we pretty much have socialized medicine now and one of the definitions of 'socialized' is government control.

Yes there are lots of rules. It's a regulated industry. There's a ton of regs for running a daycare, Why? Because we grew tire of kids kicking the bucket while a daycare. The medical industry is regulated so we don't have a bunch of quacks out there killing people. Unless one decides to go live on an deserted island someone, there's going to be a certain degree of govt involvment. Yes, there are govt regulations of the medical industry but that doesn't rise to the level of being socialized medicine.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by awpitt

Yes there are lots of rules. It's a regulated industry. There's a ton of regs for running a daycare, Why? Because we grew tire of kids kicking the bucket while a daycare. The medical industry is regulated so we don't have a bunch of quacks out there killing people. Unless one decides to go live on an deserted island someone, there's going to be a certain degree of govt involvment. Yes, there are govt regulations of the medical industry but that doesn't rise to the level of being socialized medicine.

...I suggest you talk to a doctor. There has been an exodus of people out of general practice over the last 15 years or so and into specialities because of massive over regulation and insane insurance costs. Then, politicians, having addressed concerns of, apparently, massive numbers of deaths at the doctors office by motivating people to quit general practice, have noticed we need more government to address the lack of good old fashioned family doctors.

I'll tell you one thing; I'd rather have an unregulated doctor on my island than a politician.