It's communism.

[rogerashton]

We call it "health insurance" but we expect it to pay for annual checkups that are as predictable as the seasons, for drugs and care for chronic conditions, for annual dental care and new eyeglasses, and so on, with (at most) a small co-payment. Now, insurance is for uncertainty -- for risky events, so that it makes sense to share the risk. What we call "catastrophic coverage" is real insurance in this sense, because most people won't have a health catastrophe in a given year, but the few who do could be wiped out if they do not have help. That's a case for insurance. But to have a program that pays for routine care just because we need it is not insurance. It is communism.

Please notice that I wrote the word "communism" with a small c. Communism with a small c is distribution according to need. Remember the slogan "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." That's communism with a small c.

And that's what Americans want in health care. We want communism. But we don't want to admit to ourselves that we are communists, so we call it "insurance." We are fooling ourselves, and people who fool themselves are fools. Our hatred and distrust of communism makes us fools.

So there it is. Americans want communism in health care. What party is going to give it to them?

[amber dog democrat]

1. what is wrong with socialism?

what is wrong with being a liberal for that matter ?
I don't see where the present system ammounts to much.

[rogerashton]

2. Did I say anything was wrong with it?

Anyway, socialism and communism are two different things. Notice how you shied away from -- THAT WORD!?

[Zensea]

6. they're not that different actually

Engels writes in one of the prefaces to the Communist Manifesto that they could have just as easily used the word socialist. The reason they didn't was because at the time (1840) there were other socialist parties who were eager to make accomodation with the center and the right (sound familiar?) Marx and Engels chose the word communism in order to make a clear distinction between what they were advocating and what these so-called socialist parties were advocating.

I don't shy away from the word, notice my sig line.

[amber dog democrat]

7. you mean the C word ?

I am such a wimp. Ok, ok, asuming it does not fall prey to powerful opportunists that are capable of becoming totolitarians... ahem.... then yes, I am OK with Communism, ( just not as it has been practiced so far ).

No utopeans, please.

No Pol Pots, Trotskys, Lennins, Maos, Kim lI Jungs, Stalins...

Fidel is somewhat better,

Ho Chi Minh may be better still

and same for Tito.

I am ok with communism, but need a better paradigm.

[rogerashton]

14. I am speaking of communism as a distributive norm,

not as a political movement -- quite different in that sense from both socialism and big-C Communism. And it is clear that there are some economic activities for which communism is a very bad idea: agricultural production, for example. But whenever we talk about meeting basic needs, we are introducing a large helping of communism into our sociopolitical hash.

By the way, utopians have a pretty good record. What distingusihes "utopian socialists" is that they see the possibility of people choosing communism voluntarily, in small groups -- what Marx dismissed as "duodecimo editions of the New Jerusalem." Marx had a point -- the hope that voluntary communism would transform society by example didn't happen -- but secular (and labor-Zionist) utopian settlements have been successful by many standards. When I said, above, the communism doesn't work for agricultural production, I should have said compulsory capitalism doesn't work. Voluntary communism does work for agricultural production -- splendidly.

I think in rejecting utopians, you mean to reject the kinds of national leaders who have imposed compulsory communism across the board, regardless of workability, which has only been done through despotism. On that I would agree, but they are the opposite of utopians.

[amber dog democrat]

35. Exactlly - depending on definition, communisim is just fine.

and i honestly wonder, had Lenin not died so soon, and Had the NEP, the New Economic Program not been dismantled and ruthlessly supressed by Stalin, what would things have been like in Russia ?

I think about the mediaval monastic orders and how some of them seemed to be organized on this principle at least at first - until they became too powerful.

The Utopians I reject are the " false utopians, the political hypocrates for whom the end justifies the means, no matter how wrong headed ill concieved those means are.
For whom an office = the expression of a will to power with no limits placed on the exercise of authority.

I would prefer Thomas Moore's model instead. I honestly do think it can work and will if the systems and agreements are reached voluntarily and carefully managed/ nurtured. I don't know about societal transformation - how to make that work.
Maybe its a falacy to look at it that way. I do think that as we change, our world changes apace and in doing so it extends a borader influence.

I think at the center of it there has to be human values and principles that reflect how all of us and this planet are interlinked. We need to go from there.

[rogerashton]

43. For another view of utopia,

See Martin Buber's book -- paths in utopia.

[JimmyJazz]

22. I agree with most of your list except for Leon Trotsky

First and foremost, he is probably the only true socialist on your list, the rest are facist dictators. Trotsky was an idealist who got blindsided by Stalin after the October Revolution. I don't usually like to correct people, but since I kinda like Trotsky, I thought I would make an exception. Thanks.

[amber dog democrat]

31. I can't seem to form an accurate opinion of Leon

I read Leon Trotsky's biography of Stalin and have read a little more on Stalin himself. I tend to think Leon had some self defeating tendencies regarding his ego and I wonder how much he would have supported the NEP with any degree of sympathy to the pesant and land owining agrarian classes. I always saw him as one of these aloof utopian types. Though much loved as he was.

Certaily he would never have been as brutal as Stalin. I just don't know how much of a help he would have been, but I do admire him. Even so I wonder if he did not have a misleading tendency towards self aggrandizement that placed his will to power ahead of the best interests of the party. Maybe this is why he never understood how dangerous Stalin was until it was too late.

But did his own ambitions conflict with the needs of the Party ? And I don't mean this in the context of the way the show trials would have stated it - through fasle testimony derived from torture.

I am pleased at how vexed Stalin was at Trotsky's published works aborad and am sad at how they finally got at him. To this day Trotsky has a degree of respect that Stalin will never command,

Still , I would not trust him much , I kind of view him as a Ralph Nader of his arena.
But what do I know ?

[JimmyJazz]

32. Agreed. I definintely think he was flawed, but I don't think

he belongs on a list with Pol Pot, Stalin, Lenin, etc. BTW: you know a lot more than most people. The other day, I was cruising through some liberal posts (not this site) and someone referred to Bush/Cheney as Marxist/Trotskyites. I was waiting for the correction and it never came. In fact, others picked up on it and starting repeating it! I was shocked.

[amber dog democrat]

34. My mistake was to generalize - Leon does not = Pol Pot

Its just as the cammanding general directing campaigns against rebels, ( was he involved in the repression of the Krondstadt revolt ? I need to check that our ), I know from reading his cables and military correspondance that he had no scruples about destoying villiages and ordering executions , ( in the same way we do now ), if it made his job any easier.
I just never saw him as a great populist. Utopians are dangerous too you know, they're just of a different stripe.

Its interesting how utopian idiologies are made to serve as a justification for some of the ungodliest crimes against humanity. Tying it into the current administrations I honestly believe the Neocons who have served as the main supporters of the Chimp Administration's policies in the Middle East, they honestly believe they are creating the context for a democracy to happen in Iraq and they can use it as a model to export it to the rest of the Middle East. How greatly they miscalculated !

Kind of reminds me of how Napoleon's Grande Armie was set to spread the benefits of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity to the rest of a world not enlightened enough to know how beneficial this new system of government was to be.

Bush Cheney are MARXISTS ? ??? Trotksyites ????
They would not hold a candle to them intellectually.

No rather the opposite : Bush Cheney are Herbert Spencers social Darwinists.
They are rather viscoius opportunists looking after themselves and their rich friends.
And the Chimp is as juvenile a public figure as any i ever studied.
I'd say Bush is closer to Idi Amin than Pol Pot. A low rate thug carrying some one elses water, and not bright enough to know it.


I wish people read more, had better committments to educating themseleves

You are better informed than most I have encountered too.
Right now i am boning up on Mexican history. There are some fascinating points in common between Russia and Mexico under P Diez I never saw before . especially since the recent power grab.

[trotsky]

3. The time will come very soon

when enough large corporations realize that a socialized system will save THEM money.

When that happens, single-payer will be a reality.

[dumpster_baby]

5. No, having people desparate to keep their jobs is more important

People will put up with a lot more if they know that they cannot have healthcare if they lose their job.

[Heyo]

40. I don't think...

.. a socialized system will ever save anybody any money.

Heyo

[trotsky]

41. The US spends, on average, 50% more...

on healthcare than other industrialized nations that have single-payer/socialized medicine.

So tell me why don't you think that system would save money here too?

[mike_c]

4. excellent point-- all the hand-wringing...

...over "socialized medicine" misses the essential point that our current for-maximum-profit-whatever-sick-people-will-pay system is at best exploitative and at worst criminal in its intent to wring profits from the ailing. It will inevitably fail. It's about time that Americans embraced "socialized medicine" for what it really is-- people's needs before corporate needs, people before profits.

[amber dog democrat]

8. AMEN to that

I just hope that realization comes sooner than later.

[Placebo]

9. If it were communism...

I WOULDN'T BE SUPPORTING IT! Because I despise commies.

so obviously it isn't :P

[Contender]

10. This conversation

is weird....

[Placebo]

11. I hate when people use GAY...

to describe things they don't like, who the hell are you? a freeper i suspect.

[Contender]

12. Not at all

Just a levelheaded human being. Sorry for my choice of words.

[Placebo]

13. So gay people aren't 'levelheaded'?

it's levelheaded to say 'that is gay'? okay, mr levelheaded

[rogerashton]

15. It was meant to be wierd.

I'm trying to shake people a little out of their habits of attaching emotional meanings to words, a habit that always leads to confusion.

Contender, welcome to DU.

The Nation, I gather that you are pretty committed to your association of emotional meanings of words, including words that -- after reading pretty carefully -- don't seem actually to be there. Did I miss something?

[Contender]

16. The Nation

is baiting me. Trying to get me to say something poltically incorrect so he/she can call the dogs out as soon as I do. Typical tactic from a typical person. Woops. What will he/she construe from that slip up?

[Vickers]

17. Nervous?

Should you be?

Then don't worry about it. Put 'em on ignore and get on with your life.

[JimmyJazz]

23. Welcome aboard

:toast:

[oneighty]

27. is weird?

Please explain why that is your opinion.

180

[Kenneth ken]

18. I'm not afraid of communism.

I really don't like the idea of comprhensive single-payer national health care.

I do like something along what you seem to be expressing; and think that it would be the best solution.

National health care for the routine and preventive stuff; an opt in insurance for catastrophic things like organ transplants and such.

Something like that would help those without any health care protection, and still leave the grredy insurance companies with a (smaller) place at the table.

I just don't know exactly where to draw the coverage line. But that seems a minor problem; I'm sure there are plenty of physicians and health care experts who could sort out whiat to put into national care, and what to privately insure.

What party will champion it? Neither of the majors this year.

[rogerashton]

24. That's not what I am expressing --

to use your words. Opt-outs always create problems (inefficiencies as well as injustice) since the healthier opt out, raising the cost to the insurance companies, who pass it on to the unhealthy folks (like me) who stay in. Mandatory universal coverage -- that is, distribution according to need, whether the need is routine or catastrophic -- is the only answer. And that result is what the American people want, although they don't want a system that will give them that result. Fools.

[quaker bill]

19. Sorry, insurance companies are capitalist ventures

At the very most they are agents to partially socialize the cost of medicine, for a handsome profit.

Doctors are not so rich under communist systems and insurance companies are not involved in medicine.

Any system that involves insurance companies in the mix is inherently capitalist.

[Vickers]

20. I agree, but the analogy holds true to a degree with communism

I mean, have you seen some of the freaking dachas that the Communist higher-ups had?

:crazy:

[rogerashton]

25. Agreed, Quaker Bill

Which is why insurance companies cannot be part of the solution to this problem. Therefore, to hell with them.

(OK, I've just wished a substantial part of my retirement fund to hell. Oh, well, I'm not going to win this one anyway. It is good to be right, but it is better to be right and to have your money on the wrongheaded bastards who are going to win.)

However, something like the solidarity coops in Quebec might make a contribution.

http://dept.kent.edu/oeoc/PublicationsResearch/Winter2000-2001/CooperativesQuebecStyle.htm

[cosmicvortex20]

21. Communism is bad

Mises has totally destroyed the concept of socialism and with it also falls communism. Its awful in practice because its wrong in theory.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Mises/msSContents.html

[JimmyJazz]

26. That's one theory and it doesn't necessarily hold water

Most governments that are democratic hold some ideals that are socialist in nature (universal health insurance, paid vacation and paid holidays are socialist ideals). This is a really tough issue to debate on a forum because no one wants to be too verbose and ideas are hard to express in snippets.

However I ask you: Do you believe the natural resources of a country belong to that country or to some American corporation who stakes claim to it? The best example I can give is, do you believe the copper of Chile belongs to Chile or to Anaconda copper? If you say it belongs to Chile, then you are expressing a socialist ideal.

Socialists, at least moderate ones, just want the government to make decisions that are in the best interest of the people and not in the best interest of large corporations. (we tend to call these people populists in this country).

[cosmicvortex20]

37. Goods and property belong to the people that purchased them.

While I dont approve of the concept of a corporation (I dont think they should even exist per se), I do think that when someone buys property, they have the right to use their property as they see fit and as long as they dont disprupt their neighbors (which is a huge grey fog area all in itself).

Chile cant own property, only people can own property.

[rogerashton]

29. Mises proved NOTHING except the idiocy of his followers.

Austrian economics is a good example of regression to the mean. Start with Menger, close to Adam Smith in the pantheon of economics, and von Wieser, nearly as great and far beyond many of my living colleagues in the economics profession; then on to Bohm-Bawerk, a bureaucrat-hater who earned his living as a bureaucrat, and von Hayek -- both of whom some good ideas, and end with von Mises, a cult-figure of no intellectual significance, and the current batch who burn candles at his altar. Worthless.

By the way, cosmix, I notice the anarchist symbol as your avatar. Don't anarchists believe (in the words of Proudhon) that property is theft? How does that work with Mises?

[cosmicvortex20]

36. I see you didnt address any points, but only used ad hom.

Hey, if you dont like Mises, fine. But dont pretend you did anything in the slightest to show his ideas as incorrect. Calling people names isnt an argument - only an admission that you dont have an argument.

Not all anarchist believe property is theft, again your mistaken.

[rogerashton]

38. You didn't make any points.

And you are right -- not all anarchists are logically consistent.

[cosmicvortex20]

39. Your right, I didnt make the points... Mises did.

Go argue with him. As for logically consistent, well see what you can produce to see how logical you in fact are.

[leesa]

28. A communist would not be paying an insurance premium

I think you mean socialized medicine, where their is shared cost between private and public sources.

We in America are not smart enough to make socialized medicine work as they have in Sweden, Canada, Norway, etc. We seem to be too greedy, all wanting our finger in the corporate pie. This is what has made our medical indutries prices soar so that people can't afford a routine check-up any more.

[rogerashton]

30. Yes, greedy --

and DUMB! We are determined to have our cake and eat it too.

Traditional communists never believed in taxation on individuals any more than fees. The idea was taxation "at the source," i.e. from the social surplus. But that can't be done without general nationalization, which I would NOT favor, and even then it is confused. Surplus -- from what point of view?? But if we were to make maximum use of land taxes and "green taxes," the burden of taxes can be much reduced.

Nevertheless: if we are going to have the health care we want, it will have to be paid out of taxes. Full stop.

[oneighty]

33. Our village is a community

As a community we tax ourselves according to our property values. We also have community fees for clean, safe water and a state of the art sewer system.

We use community funds to build and maintain streets, sidewalks, social order, schools and so on.

It is a form of communism.

IMHO.

180

[TrogL]

42. You know what you guys need? A Liberal Party

Just trash the Democratic Party and start over.

Plank 1 - "communist" style Health care.

http://www.liberal.ca/default_e.aspx

[rogerashton]

44. How 'bout a New Democratic Party?

Canadian imperialism, eh?

[RandomKoolzip]

45. So Canada is communist? Lemme write that one down.

That's sure gonna surprise my Canadian friends when I tell 'em!

[MadHound]

46. No, actually it isn't communism, it is simply the insurance companies

Covering their ass, playing the numbers, that's all. It has been shown time and again that people who go in for routine checkups are much less likely to have catastrophic health problems. Since routine check ups are a little bit expensive for the average American, most wouldn't go. The insurance companies are simply playing the odds here, paying for the routine checkup now so they won't have to pay for the catastrophic bill later.