If Mussolini were to design a national HEALTH CARE plan . . . what would it look like?

[Faryn Balyncd]

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power."

- - - - Benito Mussolini

What would be the main features of a health care plan under a fascist system?
. . . Under a system whose defining characteristic is the merger of corporate interests with state power?




Might, per chance, a plan in which corporations come up with overpriced "insurance" plans, and in which the state "goes after" those who do not, or cannot, voluntary purchase such policies qualify?

Certainly such a system could NOT properly be called "socialized medicine".

And it seems like torturing our language to call individual mandates a "free market" solution.




But is not accurate to call such a system (of forced purchase of private, overpriced products) "corporatism" (to use Mussolini's preferred term)?








We have seen the current "robber baron" version of capitalism produce a grossly distorted system in which insurance companies extract huge discounts for themselves, then systematically exclude the sickest patients, forcing them to not only forgo coverage, but be individually billed grossly exaggerated "normal" rates (rates which can be as high as 400-800% higher than the heavily discounted rates insurance companies pay). Now, courtesy of "bankruptcy reform", hospitals are turning over accounts to collection agencies which charge rates that would have sent a loan shark to prison a few years ago. And they are now armed with "reformed" bankruptcy laws which leave even homesteads vulnerable.


America rejected "robber baron" capitalism under Teddy Roosevelt.

The American way is one of a "mixed economy", one which values individual economic freedom, which benefits from entrepreneurial incentives, but in which government power is exercised, not as a tool for corporate interests, but to restrain monopolistic corporate abuses. The American way is a way, not of "robber baron" capitalism, but of "democratic capitalism", (the classic American "mixed economy" approach).

And it would seem that the fitting American solution to the current health-care catastrophe would definitely NOT be to force Americans to purchase grossly overpriced policies from the very people who created our current system.

To the contrary, an American "democratic capitalism" solution would seem to be an expansion of our Medicare system to all Americans - - - a single payer "Medicare for all" system, a system in which self-employed physicians and private hospitals continue the private practice of medicine (as they currently do for America's over 65 population) under a system which is freed of the gross price discrimination od the present system, and freed of the huge expenses now going to insurance companies. (Perhaps if these companies had created a system that actually worked, their huge fees would be deserved. But when they create, as they currently have, a pricing system that worsens the problem, well . . . . . .)

So, it would seem that if we were to name the various health care solution accurately, we would have the following:

1. a system in which monopolistic interests create price discrimination favoring powerful interests at the expense of everyone else:

Such a system meets the definition of "robber baron", unrestrained capitalism


2. a system in which government power is used to restrain monopolistic excesses for the common good, and to create a level playing field so that free enterprise works for the benefit of all. Such a system, modeled after are current Medicare system, could be a single payer "Medicare for all" system:

Such a system meets the definition of "democratic capitalism" - a "mixed economy" solution which, until recently, was the traditional American way.


3. a health-care system in which the government own the hospitals and clinics, and physicians, nurses, and other health care workers are EMPLOYED by the government (such as in the UK):

Such a system meets the definition of "socialized medicine"


4. a health-care system in which private insurance corporations create overpriced insurance policies, unaffordable by large segments of the population, and the government forces citizens to purchase such policies (or "goes after" their resource to pay the insurance companies . . . .

Such a system meets the definition of . . . . . . . . .

(Well, we know that Mussolini favored the term "corporatism".

But what do you think?

Does the proper term start with an "F"?












(ADDENDUM: A few commentors seem to think I am arguing against universal health care, rather than recognize that I am arguing in favor of a SINGLE PAYER, "Medicare for all" system.

Some apparently have also concluded that this is an Obama inspired posting.

Unfortunately, neither of our 2 candidates are currently advocating a single payer, Medicare-for-all system.

It is my hope that open discussion of:

(1) what "individual mandates" actually amount to,
(2) whether strengthening insurance companies with individual mandates make the eventual adoption of a single payer system more or less likely, and
(3) whether government should wield its power to benefit corporations OR citizens

will impact the direction of our party positively)



:kick:

[leftofthedial]

1. mandatory for citizens to purchase from for-profit, private insurance providers

[McCamy Taylor]

2. Oh, Jesus. Enough with the name calling. If it ain't universal, it ain't gonna work.

That is a fact of public health. I'm going to have to write a journal about this, I can see. I am fed up with the Obama supporters pandering this issue for politics when they have no idea of the public health issues involved. It is like practicing medicine without a license. Take my word as an MD/MPH who has researched this plenty, the reason that Europe has efficient/affordable/quality health care and ours is overpriced/garbage health care is due, in part, to the fact that their is universal and no one is allowed to opt out.

Hell, there are a lot of Obama supporters who would like to opt out of all four years of high school, too and work full time, but that does not mean that we should pass a law letting them do it.

[avaistheone1]

3. If it isn't universal, it is not much of change from what already exists.

[Faryn Balyncd]

7. The issue is WHAT KIND of universal program we work for . . . . . .

Do we work for a single payer plan, such as that which both Physicians for a National Health Program, and the California Nurses Association support? The only system which will not continue to waste the huge amount of the health care dollar currently going to insurance companies. That will instead tap these resources to pay for actual health care services.

http://www.pnhp.org/
http://www.guaranteedhealthcare.org/



In the interest of avoiding inappropriate "name calling", what do you think is the most appropriate term for a system in which private corporations design insurance programs, and the government uses its power to enforce universal purchase of policies?

[Lucinda]

4. It would be dusty.

He's been dead a looooong time.

[Tarc]

5. Hmm, DU or Obama's version of the FR?

Getting hard to tell thew difference these days... :shrug:

[Fovea]

6. all without exception would have to purchace

their own insurance from an insurance company indemnified against all legal actions.

And the penalty would be to be sent to a work prison where your income went towards your insurance policy.

Drugs would not be part of the insurance, of course. And buying offshore drugs... see above.