Sunday, March 1, 2009

Socialism and Health Care

Being that some people are interested in the topic of Socialism, I decided this week to continue about it in more detail. I received a reply that was up for the idea of "national heath care" as a positive of Socialism. So this weeks blog is Socialism repeted with a little national health care thrown in.

There are a few problems with Socialism in accordance with national health care. The argument with health care and socialism posted at is as true as it gets. If you want to read some about JFK's tax cut (used in the last sources argument), visit for a fuller story. Even the source at, although having bad syntax (not like mine is great), has a good argument about Socialism all the same.

My first question is reguarding national health care. Who would pay for national health care? The government? Where do they get their money? Oh... so tax the rich? Haha that's a good one. Did you know that the top 1% pay more than 10 times in federal taxes than the bottom 50%? Visit before you say "tax the rich." And like the argument made by source #1, the government may be to blame for the price of health care now. "As soon as you get government involved, there are mandates of what plans have to include, it increases prices and consolidates supply," etc.

Secound question is, all socialism just for national healthcare?

Let's get this straight, Socialism lets the government take money from people that deserve it and have earned it, and gives it to those who are unable to (due to some condition, etc.) earn or don't deserve it. That may sound harsh and unfair, but for the most part is true. Socialism, by the sounds of it, makes the majority of people more lazy. It makes it so people don't really have to work as long as there is someone (the rich) to pay for it.

So, before you reply, read the articles above. They're aren't that long, and their concepts have relevance to your lives. Please don't be arrogant to believe that I was able to put every argument that these readings give me, or perfectly depict the argument that is going on in my head, on the table. I am simply throwing out some info, asking questions, and waiting for a knowledgeable response. Till next time... Dylan out.


  1. Personally, I think that government officials who promote national health care should become a patient at a government-run county clinic. That alone would close to silence the issue. To be a patient at a county clinic is very dehumanizing. First of all, you are not a person with a name, you are a number. Next, it takes up most of your day. They schedule about 20 people for a 9am appointment, so if you arrive on time, you still have to wait for several hours to be seen. When you are seen, it is by an internist who you've never seen before. So you have to relate your entire medical history every time you visit. There is no such thing as continuity of care. Then you wait while the internist consults with the doctor and the rest of the group before finally returning to give you a diagnosis/prognosis/protocol. There is no way our elitist government officials would submit to what national health care would mean to them, so why would we want to? There are situations where people need help, and there should be help available, but if people really understood what it meant, I think they'd be pretty motivated to work hard to provide for themselves.

  2. In response to Donna (and this issue in general), I recognize that county services are not great, and improvements must be made, but what is worse, what Donna described above or nothing at all? I still think nothing at all is worst, and a lot of people I know have no health insurance at all. I have a friend who has a heart problem, has had it her whole life and has a family history. She is self-employed (she cleans houses for a living) and has no health insurance. She was very excited recently because she had saved enough money to move out on her own (she is in her 40's - long story), but a recent episode has left her $56,000 in dept with medical bills. So, now she has given up her plans to live on her own as well as many other plans she had for her life. Hooray for capitalism!

  3. In response to Jenny (and this issue in general), socializing health care doesn't just affect the health care plans of those who can't afford normal health care plans; it affects the standard of health care for people both rich and poor. What is worse, a system which doesn't work for some people, or a system which doesn't work for anybody? Nobody wants to see others suffer, but they shouldn't be forced to take responsibility for other people's health. Maybe if people weren't taxed to run failed programs, there would be money left to help people directly.