Socialism here we come - Oregon Voters Will Decide On Universal Health Care

WSJ.com ^

[Cicero]

Our local state representative introduced a bill for single-payer insurance in Vermont last year, but it got only 9 votes. Most legislators knew that Vermont simply can't afford anything like that. I'm supporting his opponent, Tom Pelham, who has fiscal sense although he's not a conservative on all issues.

I'm afraid I agree with the view that the failure of socialized medicine in Oregon is unlikely to teach anyone a lesson. True liberals never learn lessons. Despite failure after failure, few of them ever convert to common sense. If socialized medicine fails, as it surely will, the liberal answer will be "More of the same." They will call on the feds to pick up the tab, first some of it and then all of it, and meanwhile they will raise taxes even more.

Since Oregon is the only state that has voted to legalize assisted suicide, all bets are off. But if liberal Vermonters have enough sense to vote down socialized medicine, although many of them are very poor and few can afford good health insurance, maybe the fruitcakes on the left coast will do the same.

It would NOT be a good precedent. Rather than admit they made a mistake, they would do their best, with the help of the next clintons and Daschles to get elected to positions of power, to drag the rest of the country down with them.

[cruiserman]

Mark Ganz, president of Regence Blue Cross Blue Shield, the largest health insurer in Oregon, sees dire times ahead if the initiative passes. "When employees ask me what it means, I tell them that we will be out of business, and you're out of a job,"

So it's not all bad news . . .

[Froggie]

Watch the stampede into the state of those wanting another government hand out - and those with chronic diseases who need expensive care. Meanwhile the wage earners and high producers will abandon the state - it will be a great experiment, not unlike the GREAT SOCIETY - and will be just as much a debacle doomed to failure. The FEDS had better not even think of bailing out the socialists in Oregon once this goes down..and I thought Mass. was the great Socialist state !

[Sloth]

He qualifies for Medicare, but she isn't old enough yet and has to buy insurance at $5,000 yearly.

I have to pay that much, too... I blame lawyers.

The board would negotiate with health-care practitioners and establish quality and cost control. Administrative costs would be limited to 5% of the roughly $20 billion budget.

How exactly do you "negotiate" once you have declared that you are going to pay 100% of whatever it costs?

[HighWheeler]

What will happen if this passes:

Employees see an instant 8-12% reduction in their take home pay.

Businesses that sell only in Oregon will layoff employees as the economy tanks, and see an immediate loss in sales as Orgonians begin to buy cheaper items outside of Oregon.

Doctors will leave Oregon in droves because of the massive paperwork, threat of government lawsuits, decreased revenue, and huge influx of hangnail cases that push out critical cases.

People with high paying jobs will leave Oregon, both because of the high state tax rate, and the pay cut their employers will impose to save the company.

People with jobs who are just barely getting by will quit to take advantage of the welfare/health care/ADC trifecta that pays better than their job (in the short run anyhow).

Unemployable people will flood into Oregon, sagging both the healthcare and welfare options.

Businesses with significant sales outside of Oregon will leave.

Insurance companies cut jobs. These people will wind up working for the Oregon healthcare at a reduced rate of pay.

Oregon will pass a huge sales tax to help cover the shortfall.

Administrative costs will start at 20% for the first couple of years (not the 5% they claim), and they will never be able to reduce this cost rate.

Property values will see an immediate drop, and will continue to drop as the state budget goes deep red with no recovery in sight. So the sooner you leave Oregon, the better for retaining your assets.

[ghost of nixon]

excellent breakdown - I'm sure it took you under a minute to figure that one out. Notice how the reporter just takes this nonsense at face value and incudes it in the story. Her comment about insurance companies profits being obscene is a clear giveaway of her agenda - just another anti-capitalist pig. I bet if she had the opportunity to make an obscene profit on the sale of her home, she would jump on it.

[Bob Buchholz]

OldPossum, read carefully, your definition does not say the the government OWNS the means of production only that it regulates and controls it. Socialism on the otherhand, requires that the producers control the political system as well as the means to distribute the produced item. Since the only entity that can control all three is the government, it follows that the government is the producer,regulator and distributer, hence the owner.

Simply put, socialism is production owned by the government, fascism is a system that allows private ownership, but highly regulates the production and distribution. Fascism is currently being called the 'third way'.

[Atlas Sneezed]

"One evening last week, 10 volunteers in Eugene were calling voters, telling them that a family with an annual income of $48,000 would see health-care outlays reduced from $4,600 a year to about $2,200. (The $2,200 represents the 4.6% income tax for health care that the average family would pay.)"

Tellingly, this omits the substantial "payroll tax" that will be imposed on the employer, giving further incentive to downsize or leave the state.

[Atlas Sneezed]

"I have to pay that much, too... I blame lawyers."

Blame the jurors.

[Sloth]

Yeah, them too.

[Eva]

It's hard to believe that middle class liberals are so stupid that they don't realize that these state programs are nothing but wealth re- distribution. When they try to bring the bottom up, they necessarily weigh the other end down, but the fulcrum is not centered. The socialist motto should be, "Aim for Mediocrity!"

[USA21]

Socialism=America

[citizenK]

Economics is largely concerned with the study of human behavior, and is not necessarily the best or most inclusive discipline from which to embark upon questions about how societies organize their economies. IOW, the dominant approach to economics divided along microeconomics and macroeconomics does not provide a very good platform for addressing the political and social dynamics related to the organization of economies. When we are talking about socialism, communism, corporatism, and even capitalism - we are talking about how political and social structures come to form the economic systems particular societies take. Economists who engage in this discussion are really working on the fringe of their discipline, and frankly speaking, such questions regarding the organization of economies are incomplete when taken from a strictly economic perspective.

Anyway - here is a textbook definition of corporatrism from The Dictionary of Human Geography - edited by Johnston, Gregory, and Smith, published by Blackwell, 1994.

corporatism
A mode of operation for the capitalist state in which major interest groups - notably those representing capital on one hand and labour on the other - share power with the elected representative government. In the latter, power is competed for through the electoral process, as in pluralism: under corporatism, governments share that power wiht unelected representatives of functional interest groups. Corporatism is especially strong in some Wester European countries (notable Austria and Germany), where emploers' groups and trade unions are routinely consulted on major issues of economic policy: it is much weaker in the UK and the USA.

From the same source, here is the definition of socialism (actaully, just an excerpt because the entry for this term is quite long...)

socialism
A term which refers to a body of writings, ideas and beliefs on social justice and equality which, in its most generally understood form, envisages a social system based upon common ownership of the means of production and distribution. In communist writings, it is considered a necessary precondition to achieving full communism, from which it is also generally distinguished by an emphasis on the difference between common and state ownership. In many other socialist, writings, however, socialism is regarded as a system in which only a significant amount of the means of production is owned or run by the state.

The definition of socialism from this "Dictionary" continues with a discussion of different flavors of socialism, inlcuding utopian socialism, Marxian socialism, and state socialism.

So, you can see that these definitions exhibit a greater appreciation for the complexities revolving around the question of how societies organize their economies. Also, you can see how the definition of socialism you have applied fits into this discussion - IOW, the definition for socialism that you use is certainly part of the definitions I have provided. You are certainly not flat out wrong with the approach you have taken, and I didn't mean to imply that if you understood my previous post in that way. It's just that questions of social organization and resulting economies are more complex than understood in defining socialism strictly as "state ownership of the means of production." For example, key to this discussion and the context of "universal health care" encompassed in the OR initiative is the idea that socialism is not just about the means of production, but also is about social equality, social justice, and state control over the means of distribution.

The point defining socialism in terms of distribution systems is lost on many Americans, and because the government does not outright "own" businesses/industries (except NASA, for example), people don't think socialism grips this country. The language defining socialism is shrouded in this country because most people would not support socialism if it is called as such. Socialized medicine is called "universal health care" in this country for that reason. People in this country do not recognize the level or degree of socialism within our system because proponents of socialism in this country know the term itself elicits a negative response from the average American. The American form of socialism (i.e., the basic platform of the Dems) is disguised and shrouded in different language, so most people will not see, nor admit, that socialism is rampant in our system of government and economy.

I think defining socialism is an imporant discussion and probably belongs on another thread where it would recieve the unqualified attention of FR discussants. Perhaps in the near future I can find an appropriate article to serve as a point of embarkation for such a discussion.

[Grover_Cleveland]

This is nit-picking but universal health care is not, strictly defined, socialism. Socialism is a economic system under which the main factors of production are owned and operated by the government..

What you describe is communism, not socialism. Socialism can be defined as an economic system where the government intervenes in the marketplace to achieve social goals. The US already has some socialism in the shape of Social Security, Medicare and public education.

[cherry]

I want this to pass so badly.....PLEASE OREGON.....just do it.....

do it for we taxpayers in Washington because a lot of deadbeats and street people and loafers etc are going to be aheading your way and out of our state....Halleluia!!!

in a serious note....how can supposedly intelligent people get sold this totally BS idea that will destroy their already failing economic position is beyond me....

I want everyone to remember though....if you visit Oregon you will not be allowed to pump your own gas.....you will pay several cents higher for that gas.....because the state of ORegon wants to keep those highly sought after gas pumping jobs.....go figure...

[OldPossum]

No, at least as defined by Karl Marx, under communism, the state has, in his words, "withered away." Therefore, it would have no functions.

[Henrietta]

A new bureaucracy funded largely by hefty taxes -- a new 3% to 11.5% payroll tax on employers, plus additional personal-income taxes of as much as 8% of income -- would pay the medical claims.

Actually, this is written in a somewhat misleading manner...The additional personal income tax hike will raise the top income tax rate to 17% of personal income. This might sound groovy to some, but keep in mind that the rates in Oregon are pretty steeply graduated to have the top rate kick in at around $2000 of income. And the poor think that they have it bad now! When this kicks in, many low income workers will lose their jobs. But they can console themselves that at least they have free health care if they can't have a job. Query as to how the rent will be paid, though.

[Henrietta]

The fact of the matter is that this chick doesn't have the money to spend on supplimental insurance only b/c she doesn't want to spend the money on something that neither brings her instant gratification or strokes her ego.

You hit the nail on the head. People who whine that they "can't afford" health insurance are usually people who, despite their penury, are able to afford alcohol, cable TV, car insurance, and a tobacco habit. Why do these people have a problem paying for health insurance? They don't have a problem paying for car insurance!

[OldPossum]

You make some very good points, especially with respect to the issue of the government's role in the distribution of goods and services, tying in Oregon's proposed universal health system in this regard. Seen from this perspective, then it indeed ceases to be regarded as simply a "state welfare program" issue and comes under the heading of socialism.

Such social programs, of course, are part and parcel of the goals of socialism as its adherents press forward to greater and greater control of the state over the individual. Those who fervently believe in the goodness of socialism (of which I am NOT one) certainly would support this Oregon initiative.

So, what I am doing is conceding that my earlier posts, though technically correct in some regards, were too narrow in scope.

Overall, you put a lot of issues into perspective. Thanks for such a good response.

[Crispy]

I don't think it will pass. I think even the Oregonian is against it. Anyways, I already voted against it and I got one of my politically confused buddies to vote for the first time. He is a republican but just doesn't know it.