On 2006-05-26 14:33:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Not in the true sense of the words, we don't.
Those are both age and means restricuted programs. Nothing socialized about that. When healthcare is available to all taxpayers, then it will be socialized. But not until then.
"
There is plenty socialized by that. When you take money from people to create a government program to provide social services, that is the very definition of socialism.
Socialism
Function: noun
Pronunciation: 'sO-sh&-"li-z&m1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods and services.
When the government administering and owning the medical system, that is socialistic.
More specifically:
social insurance
NOUN:
An insurance program carried out or mandated by a government to provide economic assistance to the unemployed, the elderly, or the disabled."
To understand socialism, one can help define it by what is the opposite of socialism, and that is capitalism. In a capitalistic political system, the individual controls the direction of goods and services. In a socialistic system, the government makes these calls. In socialistic societys, the government makes choices about things such as medical care with the goal of doing what is best for society in general.
America, since FDR, has become a mixed system,and is anything but a pure capitalistic society anymore.One can Argue whether this is good or bad, but it is almost self evident.
Medicare/medicaid meets all criteria for socialized medical care, it is just restricted in its scope. If one advocates a socialized medical program for all, then the easiest way to do this is expand the existing medicare system to cover everyone ELSE that already isn't receiving it. We would also eliminate medicaid.
So, everyone but the eldery would be placed on the same system that the eldery are currently under, and all medical aide to the poor would be eliminated entirely (because they would be covered under medicare). We could also simplify the medical insurance system, eliminating all these "networks", exclusions, medical policies and so forth.
Personally I don't think it would be a bad idea. Doctors just make too much money by price fixing and gouging, and operate in a mixed system anyway, collecting from both individuals and governments. Medical care also operates opposite of a normal capitalistic system in the sense that increased competetion also raises, not lowers prices. Doctors don't bother to offer service in the traditional sense anyway. In america, unless you are dying or under dire circumstance, they make you wait, and wait, and wait. Even with an appointment you wait for hours. Imagine if any other business treated you like that.
So our medical system is broke. This is obvious to anyone sick, or stuck paying their own way, or paying the outrageous medical insurance premiums, only to find when they are sick they wait, they are overcharged, and they still pay outrageous sums. Often, one can pay more in deductibles for care in america than people pay for care elsewhere.