Why is it that U.S. healthcare can't be 'socialised' yet banking can?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 22, 2008 8:50 PM GMT
    Just a random Monday thought.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 22, 2008 8:54 PM GMT
    HUM...the RNC is trying to figure out how they can steal our money first.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 22, 2008 10:20 PM GMT
    Can't have socialized medicine without tort reform first and that is the first major hurdle preventing US socialized medicine.


    Not really sure the financial sector is truly being socialized. We'll see 3 years from now. If the US government still has large direct control then it will have been socialized. Right now, it is preventing it from collapsing. Wanting to prevent failure is not the same thing as desiring central planning.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 22, 2008 10:23 PM GMT
    The US health care system is partially "socialized". Isn't that what medicare and medicaid is?
  • swimbikerun

    Posts: 2835

    Sep 22, 2008 11:07 PM GMT
    Better yet, why is the best health reserved for Congress, yet not for the people they supposedly represent?

    "In an excerpt from his new book, Practicing Medicine Without a License, Don Sloan, M.D., shows that members of Congress enjoy health coverage with unlimited doctor visits, no deductibles and no co-pays -- all for $35 a month. So what about the rest of us?"

    http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/56439/the_best_health_care_is_reserved_for_congress/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 22, 2008 11:18 PM GMT
    An answer could be that without a bailout everyone suffers but with healthcare only those at the bottom suffer.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Sep 22, 2008 11:24 PM GMT
    Trance24 said, "An answer could be that without a bailout everyone suffers but with healthcare only those at the bottom suffer."


    5% Top
    95% Bottom
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 22, 2008 11:32 PM GMT
    5% / 95% of what?

    Is 95% of American suffering and in need of socialized medicine?

    If you meant the bailout well I'd argue that over time that if everyone at the bottom can't afford to get by it comes back and bites hard on the 5%.
  • spinningguy

    Posts: 178

    Sep 22, 2008 11:35 PM GMT
    I asked that same exact question just yesterday...then I realized that its not really the financial institutions that are being socialized just their loses their profits seem to still be privatized. Maybe, I am behind but that is what it looked like this weekend! icon_mad.gif
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Sep 22, 2008 11:52 PM GMT
    spinningguy said, "I asked that same exact question just yesterday...then I realized that its not really the financial institutions that are being socialized just their loses their profits seem to still be privatized. Maybe, I am behind but that is what it looked like this weekend! icon_mad.gif"

    Grasshopper says, you're an astute student.
  • swimbikerun

    Posts: 2835

    Sep 23, 2008 1:09 AM GMT
    NNJfitandbi saidAll the inequities of capitalism with the cronyism of a command economy.

    Sound like the People's Republic of China?

    No, a better term is Corporatism which has many parallels with the Fascistic government of Nazi Germany.
    No, I'm not talking about ovens for burning people, I'm talking about a government which places corporate interests above national interests or obfuscates the two so they are intertwined.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism#On_Fascist_Corporatism
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 23, 2008 3:30 AM GMT
    spinningguy saidI asked that same exact question just yesterday...then I realized that its not really the financial institutions that are being socialized just their loses their profits seem to still be privatized. Maybe, I am behind but that is what it looked like this weekend! icon_mad.gif


    "This is the way in which our economy works. The way our economy works is you take just about any dynamic sector of it you know, and you find that it's based off massive public subsidy, and privatization of profit. Public pays the cost and takes the risks; and the private systems make the profit, if there is any." - Noam Chomsky
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 23, 2008 6:17 AM GMT
    what an interesting question. i like this thread.

    in short... because socializing banks is a profitable venture for the US gov't whereas socializing healthcare is not.

    gotta pay those fat cats their pay cheques.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 23, 2008 6:47 AM GMT
    An inconvenient truth.....The USA has a $380 billion dollar medicare system. Why is it that nobody ever counts that even tho its more than the socialist european countries added together.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 23, 2008 7:09 AM GMT
    Because... it's profitable.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 23, 2008 9:59 AM GMT
    But why is there always money available for wars in far off countries and money can be found for these banks but funding a decent health service for everyone is somehow impossible and too expensive.

    By the sounds of it the American Government is going to rush through this rescue package in a matter of days but they take years to discuss healthcare. Why is that?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 23, 2008 10:04 AM GMT
    redheadguy saidBut why is there always money available for wars in far off countries and money can be found for these banks but funding a decent health service for everyone is somehow impossible and too expensive.

    By the sounds of it the American Government is going to rush through this rescue package in a matter of days but they take years to discuss healthcare. Why is that?


    That's because the Republicans were against government before they were for it and because they believe that corporate profits should be privatized, while corporate losses should be publicized.

    The taxpayers should get the profits from the sales of the bad paper first and they should get stock in the companies they are bailing out as well. The Republicans do not want that; they just want taxpayers to bail out the companies with no strings attached.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 23, 2008 10:07 AM GMT
    Well, dfrw, that does have an insane logic to it. Just as having an ancient man and a rabid, gun-toting madame leading the Republicans has a sort of weird logic to it, too.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 23, 2008 10:09 AM GMT
    Indeed.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 23, 2008 12:10 PM GMT
    Yeah, but medicare and medicaid doesn't protect everyone. My partner and his son are covered under state insurance, but I can't get any state aid because I'm not considered to be part of the family. When I applied, I was only 19, receieved no money from family, and should have qualified for the aid. The problem is that the aid is so backed up, all single, childless people have to be put on a waiting list for insurance. After I told them that I was fine with being on a waiting list, I was informed that they weren't even really accepting people for the waiting list any longer. Basically, it was more just for show so that they could close the program out so that there would be no new recipients of state-funded insurance.

    If we can't get free healthcare, I think it would it would work out if everyone under a certain income level could receive affordable healthcare, and everyone that had a reasonable income automatically had healthcare taken out of their pay.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 23, 2008 12:41 PM GMT
    Because America cares more about making a profit then the welfare of its citizens. Duh. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 23, 2008 1:22 PM GMT
    coolarmydude saidTrance24 said, "An answer could be that without a bailout everyone suffers but with healthcare only those at the bottom suffer."


    5% Top
    95% Bottom



    I agree. 95% of the people I meet ARE bottoms!


    Or wait.... was that not what you meant?
  • TexanMan82

    Posts: 893

    Sep 23, 2008 1:50 PM GMT
    I think the questions is, do you really want the federal government running your healthcare? I sure as hell don't.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 23, 2008 2:47 PM GMT
    TexanMan82 saidI think the questions is, do you really want the federal government running your healthcare? I sure as hell don't.


    There are no less than five companies involved in delivering my health insurance to me. Bloat. This weekend I spoke to a pharm rep who said most of what she does is buy meals for her client list and offer other perks. Waste. My doctor's office is a mess of mistake prone and stubborn office staff surrounding a brilliant MD. Inefficient. My individual coverage, by official TX standards, is "less than adequate", even though I'm healthy, under 40, and pay $200/month, but am open to as much as $8000 in medical expenses per year should something go wrong. All this after my alumni discounts. My policy at the time was just under $300 a month. Ripoff.

    I got two CT scans two and three years back, one for a suspected ruptured spleen, the other for possible kidney damage. Each came in right at my deductible. I'm out $5000 for those two procedures, which includes the fees for going to an emergency room that was not approved by my insurance company (didn't have the fine print on me at the time I was freaking out about my spleen). Predatory.

    My company cannot offer health insurance to employees due to the strict rules governing small businesses and employee partricipation. I'd go work for a larger corporation, but then I couldn't do what I do for a living anymore...something I love to do, am talented at, and serves to help keep your air and water clean. Apparently if I want to stay healthy I need a Fortune 5000 company to provide for me. Hmm. Social engineering.

    So forgive those of us who deal with this and have less faith in the private sector than you do. I mean, if your point is that the private sector is more efficient than the government might be in this area, or offers simpler and more affordable choices, I'd like to sell you this nice tall glass of delicious premium air.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 23, 2008 3:03 PM GMT
    Give 'em hell Stan!!!!