People in the US have an obsession with owning everything. Owning lots of expensive things gives us a sense of individuality, like we have control of our lives.
The same goes for health insurance. The insurance companies want you to believe that you own your own policy. They want you to feel a sense of individuality, like you have control over where your money is going. They almost give you the sense that every dollar you put in to the company will be returned to you.
But health insurance, even through a private company, is a socialist concept. What insurance companies do is they pool together the resources of many people (millions of people for bigger companies). When anyone in that pool needs help, those resources are used to pay for operations, medicine, doctor's visits, etc. No matter what you pay for your insurance, you (theoretically) will get access to a large pool of resources to pay for your health problems.
Letâs say I've had a Blue Cross policy for a couple of years and paid a total of $1,000 for health insurance over that time. I get in a horrible accident that requires $100,000 of surgery. Blue Cross will pay much more than the $1,000 that I've put into their company. Even though Iâve put $1,000 into the company, the other $99,000 to pay for my operations has to come from other people's policies. So if you have a Blue Cross policy too, you are paying for my operations. You can believe as hard as you want that the money you put in is only for you, but itâs not. It's for everyone in the collective pool. This is a socialist system.
To say that you don't want a Universal system because "I donât want to pay for someone elseâs health problems" is an absurd notion. By having private insurance, you still are paying for other people's health problems. Your money is going into a company which collectivizes the money and pays for every policy holder's health problems, no matter how much that person puts into the company.
This is the same idea with Universal Health Care. It is simply pooling money together to pay for everyone's health problems, no matter how much or how little you have put into the system. So whether you get insurance through a private or public system, you are paying for everyone's health problems. So if you are scared that "Obamacare" is just a Socialist plot, take a look at how insurance companies work. They work on a Socialist model for profit. Socialism works in some cases, and insurance is a perfect example. It's time to collectivize all health insurance to guarantee health care for everyone. People should be given health care without the threat of going broke. A civilized country would not make people choose between health and rent, or prescriptions and food, just because profit is at stake. There is nothing wrong with making money. But when people's lives are at stake, it becomes a problem. A Universal System or Public Option is needed now.
How is equating welfare to Stalinism not a radical and nonsensical jump?
I don't know what I was thinking when I said that. I'm not sure if I just misread what thelistman was saying or what. My bad everyone, and thanks for calling me on that one.
So is a socialist model for insurance better? Why does everyone deserve to be insured? It seems like we have to accept some fundamental principles to reach this conclusion.
I don't know what I was thinking when I said that. I'm not sure if I just misread what thelistman was saying or what. My bad everyone, and thanks for calling me on that one.
Np. I've posted my fair share of fallacies on here. This place needs more scrutiny, the things I've got away with.
So is a socialist model for insurance better?
I'd argue it's not socialist, at least not in intention, but assuming it is, from a purely economic perspective, then the answer is yes. UHC has consistently been proven to be more efficient than private variants. The US version is one of the least ineficient in the world, as doctors have an incentive to recommend more expensive treatments since they know insurance companies will cover it all.
Why does everyone deserve to be insured? It seems like we have to accept some fundamental principles to reach this conclusion.
I take John Rawl's interpretation on this issue in that without basic material wealth, healthcare included, equality of opportunity can never exist, and individuals will forever be unable to attain self realisation. This is of course a subjective principle, but I agree with it. I think it's very difficult to argue that anyone can be happy in life whilst having to choose between medicine and food.
Really healthcare isn't socialist. Socialist principles such as equality of worth do not need apply here. Plenty of non socialist nations have adopted schemes without sufferring mass trauma.
