Jim Halpert Explains

Does having police make a society socialist?

Does having universal Healthcare make a society socialist?

It certainly represents an intrusion into my private financial life I don't want or think is something for which the government should exist.

But does it make a society intrinsically socialist?

If you believe provided healthcare is a right then I'd say you essentially believe the role of the state is to provide for the welfare of all individuals, which is a socialist view and in line with mandating state-provided care.

If you believe the duty of the state is to secure for its citizens a fair environment in which they can pursue and secure healthcare with reasonable effort, and in which the policy pursuant to that goal may include but not be limited to a government plan, then no, that is not socialism. That is just a government ensuring the private market is kept fair and open.

Why can't they have two systems? One state regulated for people who can't afford healthcare, and one for people who can buy their own healthcare?

I actually discussed my own version of that idea at length with Cerebrophage.

In short, every year on your tax forms you'd opt into a public plan with comprehensive health benefits, but at the cost of an extra (for example) 10% tax assessed on your income.

That way the private market can't gouge even their lowest plan prices to over 10% of your income (tax value is again hypothetical) and the government plan doesn't encroach on the private market as a whole because it needs to have the extra tax be high enough to largely self-fund the program. It also, being a government plan, would be open to those with preexisting conditions.

Lot of problems, one solution. I've been saying for years it should be implemented.

That's not what I asked of whether or not it is a right.

I asked: does socialized healthcare make a society intrinsically socialist?

You missed my point. Again, if the state feels it has an obligation to be the sole provider of care and will forcibly accomplish that goal then I say yes.

If the state feels it has an obligation to merely ensure everyone can access fair healthcare, which is no different from ensuring any other market is operating fairly, then I say no.

I'll take that answer thanks for being more succinct

Of course.

Amongst other things, yes. There is socialism as well as capitalism present in a healthy democracy.

Well-regulated capitalism is the way to go. 👍

Well regulated socialism is also the way to go.

My issue with that is it's still socialism. The people are still largely dependent on government alone for their well-being any any real socialist system. That basic 'state of nature' as it were, is just something I refuse to accept as properly ordered. Government exists to protect and promote the welfare of the people, not solely provide it.

Well yes, but no. The people promote the welfare of the people as they pay the taxes for it. With socialism, you will feel less guilt for not giving to charity as your taxes will pay for all of the things that charity asks for: better healthcare for those in need, better schooling and education, etc.

Now, I am a strong proponent of healthcare, and Sloth sent me a video that was actually pretty cool that explains why our country can't do national socialized healthcare. It simply isn't sustainable for the entire country. It should be done at the state level. The only problem is, much of the south eastern states that make far less money than many of the blue states that make a large amount of money (California, New York, etc.) won't be able to afford such programs. In essence, the "Costal Elite" will continue to be the "Costal Elite" with their ability to fund such programs, while the other states that can't afford it will fall further behind.

Here's the video...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1TaL7OhveM