Conservatives/Liberals a question on Socialism and the United States?

I'm looking to gain an understanding on Socialism and what people think its all about since its constantly talked about. So here's the question... How would something like medicare be different if it were "socialized" versus what we have now? Also I asked a similar question about the US Military but didn't get a lot of answers. If anyone wants to answer that question or put their thoughts about that in this question please do! The most well thought out and explained answer will get chosen as best answer.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Asa8_...

Update:

Hey Justine 2. I was hoping for maybe a little more explanation on why you feel how you do? What are your thoughts on how those programs would be different if they were "socialized" versus what we have now and why?

Update 2:

Some interesting answers so far... as well as interesting "thumbs up" and "thumbs down" ratings. I wonder if anyone that is simply rating answers would care to contribute to the discussion and talk about why they feel the way they feel?

Update 3:

To robert_dod: So far I haven't seen many problems in getting good responses. Every response so far has been informative one way or the other. I don't ask questions and then look for something I agree with. This question is indeed asked with the hopes of getting people to think and gain understanding.

Update 4:

When I say "people" above I am including myself in that as well, just to clarify.

Update 5:

Hey Defender of America, I appreciate your opinion. But I ask that you please support it. Otherwise its just words. I mean, take a look at some of these other answerers. Some have said that these things are socialized institutions and then they have EXPLAINED why. I hold you and myself as well to the same standard. So what are your thoughts as to why the Military(and public services) are not socialized?

Update 6:

Hey rwb, I just took a look at your answer. That's an interesting sentiment from the college professor. I think however, that him including democracy in that comparison might have been a mistake. My understanding is that Communism and socialism are economic systems, while democracy is a political system(i.e. a means for deciding governance, vs a means for determining distribution of resources). In fact if you just look at the economic systems, I think your professor is exactly right, Pure capitalism, pure socialism, and pure communism are essentially the same thing.

10 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    I think part of the problem in getting a good response is your example.

    The military is a "socilized" institution. It is created and paid for by the government. All rules and regulations are made by the government. The institution is managed by the government. It is a government institution.

    Medicare is asocilized institution for the same reason. The rates of pay are paid by the government. The rules are paid by the government. the plan is administered by the government. Unlike the military, users can choose their preferred provider (you just do not get to choose your platoon leader or sergeant), but it is a socilized institution.

    Thus, you are asking "what would a socialized institution look like if ... it were a socialized institution."

    An interesting inquiry for analysis would be to compare medicare with private insurance treatment, results, and costs, within the United States; or compare socilized medicine of (for example) Europe with non-socialized medicine in the United States. (The results would no doubt surprise many, and flummox conservatives).

    For example, because medicare is run by the government, administrative and advertising costs of private insurance is approximately 30% of all premium dollars, and accounts for less than 2% of medicare. The cost for treatment (paid by insurers) is more than what is paid under medicare. Treatment results for medicare patients is substantially the same as private insurance. While the cost for medicare has increased, it has increased slower than the cost for private insurance. There is insurance fraud in both medicare and private insurance, but estimates vary. Medicare publishes their findings, but most private insurers do not do so. While there is a financial incentive to locate and correct fraud in the private sector, announcing such fraud and results would have negative marketing effects.

    Comparing private and socialized medicine (Europe to the United States), the medical results in Europe are better than in the United States (overall). However, there are some segments that are better served in the United States. The "gold plated" insurance plan patients generally get faster and more prompt attention than standard in Europe. Of course, health care treatment is far more available to the middle and lower classes in Europe than it is to the uninsured in the United States (who must rely on emergency room treatment). There is a wait for many services in Europe, which on average is slightly longer than in the United States (although there is anecdotal evidence of very long delays pending insurance approval in the United States, or for treatment in Europe). In general, the wait is somewhat longer in Europe for non-emergent testing and treatment. The cost per citizen for healthcare in Europe is SUBSTANTIALLY lower than in the United States, which is surprising considering the mortality rates and treatment results in Europe are, on the whole, better than in the United States.

    What does this tell us?

    Liberals would say that it means that we should follow the medicare model, with single-payer health care. This would allow for economies of scale, and true negotiating power.

    Conservatives would argue that the medicare plan itself shows the problem. It has to keep being amended to meet the needs of the people. (Medicare, part B, private insurance, the donut hole, etc.) If you have a problem in the US, with coverage, just buy a policy that covers what you need.

    Of course, that assumes that the employer offers competing plans (rarely the case); or that you can afford healthcare (rarely the case) not provided by the employer.

    I am not sure what the answer is. But this shows that there seem to be advantages to competition (militating against single-payer health plan), and advantages to single-payer health plans. It really comes down to political philosphy more than health care issues.

    Good Luck

  • Anonymous
    4 years ago

    twenty years in the past exertions unions fairly stood for whatever. But now days the liberals have purchased them out and they're not more than a deep pocket for political lobbyist and particular curiosity businesses. That's wherein your exertions dues are going. As a ways as gains pass, in case you pass from a million% to two% benefit, that might be regarded a list benefit as good. All the exertions unions are doing is riding up the price of items. Corporations do not consume that price, they move it directly to the customer. In go back you get a little bit larger salary and improvement kit than what the individual sector is making, as good because the dis-pride of realizing that your investment the enemy inside. By the way in which, appear out, the liberals might be pointing the providence tax chance at you subsequent.

  • 1 decade ago

    Medicare is an example of socialized medicine. The people pay into Medicare according to their ability, and Medicare is provided to patients based on a particular criteria of need. In the case of Medicare, the criteria is age. Medicaid, where the criteria is more economic, is often considered a more pure example of socialized medicine.

    With exceptions such as some mercernary forces, most militaries are socialized. Defense has typically been considered a governmental responsibility; indeed, it is stipulated in the preamble of the United States Constitution.

  • 1 decade ago

    As answered with your question on the military, as medicare, much like the military, or education is funded by tax dollars, it is a socialist program. What most people fail to realize, and I know that you DO understand, is that every country on earth has socialist programs right along side private sector economic programs. Every country on earth is essentially socialist to some degree because every country has some programs that are government funded, such as the military or education. The degree of socialism is what varies. The former Hong Kong is probably the least socialized country on earth, and probably DPRK or Cuba would be the most. We fall somewhere smack in the middle as do most countries.

    I know you know these answers, but your questions are designed to get people thinking, well done. Hopefully someday people will start to understand that socialism is not a bad word, it is just a word, and it is a part of all of our lives.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Medicare is a Socialist based system, as is the VA. and Medicaid.

    So is Social Security for that matter.

    We've adopted them, they are unworkable and unsustainable.

    I think the V.A. is a legitimate expenditure for the American taxpayer, as we owe our veterans a debt of gratitude. I think that would fall under providing for the common defense.

    I would have to agree with Superman, below. The V.A. is not Socialism, as it is owed to our soldiers.

    And I'm sorry, but anyone claiming that Europe has better medical care than the U.S., I cannot take seriously. Why do they come here, when they "really" need good care?

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Medicare is socialized. The military is socialized. So is everthing else that is not privatized.

    The military is necessary and it is the reason for government (common defense).

    However, all the socialized programs are wasteful and filled with payoffs and fraud.

    If you just charge more as you spend more then you never become efficient Plus you are a forced monopoly that you would break up if it were private sector..

  • 1 decade ago

    Medicare is a bad example of socialism. It is owned/run by the government. But it does not spread the wealth. It takes money from people who work and pays medical bills of people who are 65 or older. The people paying the taxes do not get to use the services. The people using the services are not paying their fair share.

    I call it bad socialism because the working poor are paying taxes to fund the program. But lots of rich people use Medicare because it is so cheap. The have-nots may be funding the haves...which is socialism backwards.

  • 1 decade ago

    Right now, they are not exactly socialism as you still have a choice in the treatment you receive and the doctor you see. However the new plan calls for government panels to decide the treatment you get, the doctor you see and access to your bank account.

    Here is a u-tube describing some of the 'provisions' in the new healthcare bill. Watch

  • rwb13
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago

    i recall a college professor, a long time ago, making a statement that there was little difference between pure communism, pure socialism or pure democracy. as we have seen for many centuries now, when you have people involved nothing is pure. therein, lies the problem. they interpret govt. to be what they want it to be as opposed to what it should be.

  • 1 decade ago

    Show me where in the US Constitution that it even mentions the words , Social , Socialistic or Socialism . Then you will have your answer .

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.