At this point socialism looks pretty good…
Socialism ranges from 0% to 100%; Sweden hit a happy medium.
By Jack E. Lohman
On the charge of “socialism,” I asked a Swedish friend how she liked it:
“Regarding socialism I don’t really know what to answer. The kind of socialism we’ve had the last 50-60 years is not to compare with the old east block in Europe and absolutely not with i.e. Cuba or North Korea. We are somewhere in the middle. Basically education, health care and basic infrastructure in the country are paid for via the taxes.”
And this country has the highest standard of living in the world!!! We could do worse…
But Sweden’s political system must be different, I asked. Indeed it is, she says.
“Of course we also have problems with lobbyists selling ideas from different economic interests, companies, friends of politicians and so on. But our campaigns before an election are not done by contributions from private persons, companies or whatever. The different parties get a sum of money from us (taxpayers) for their campaign and that’s it, so the corruption are more on a personal level, friends and family on important government, county or local posts.”
Wow. Public funding of campaigns still has favoritism? A drop in the bucket compared to ours.
And I’m sure Sweden has made room for corporate crooks too, so not all is lost with socialism.
Here’s a 6-step plan to recovery:
- The U.S. will not recover until we bring back our jobs, and giving tax breaks to companies that outsource is not the way to do it.
- Jobs will not return until our elections are funded by taxpayers rather than corporations. We want politicians working for us, not them.
- We need zero taxes for good corporations that don’t outsource.
- We need Medicare-for-all paid for by taxpayers rather than businesses. (Oh, sorry, that’s “socialism.”)
- Because the banks won’t make loans, the taxpayers should open their own bank and compete, like the US Postal service does with UPS and FedEx. That will spring loose the cash in a hurry! (Uh, oh. Could that be socialism too?)
- And, oh, we need a complete political turnover. We can’t fix the problem with the same idiots that created it.
It seems that conservatives have accepted socialism as we taxpayers bail out the rich, but they hate it when we bail out the poor. Funny how that works.
Yeah, the conservatives have made Sweden’s political system look pretty good.
– Lohman is a retired business owner from Colgate and publishes http://MoneyedPoliticians.net. He authored “Politicians – Owned and Operated by Corporate America” and can be reached at jelohman@gmail.com.
Thanks for this informative post.
I think that I heard Charles Krauthammer say that TRUE socialism occurs when the government takes over the means of production. It doesn’t sound like Sweden has that. Nor does my health care reform plan, Equal Health Care For All.
My plan directs, controls, and subordinates the resources, the tools to accomplish health care, but it does not change ownership of anything, nor does it remove the ability to make profit. The new bottom line is clear and equal access to health care for everyone. Profit becomes a secondary goal and is simply controlled as opposed to being unbridled. I don’t mind being called a socialist or that I am suggesting socialized medicine. (The term, “socialized medicine,” I believe, is a meaningless term designed to scare people.) I think the term, “managed capitalism,” describes my reform plan better.
The book, Equal Health Care For All, is now available as a free download from my new web site listed below.
I do not believe that only taxpayers should be responsible for payment for our health care system. I think there should be a mandatory health care fee due from everyone living in the USA regardless of whether they actually pay any yearly taxes on April 15.
I certainly agree with removing the burden of the health care benefit from employers’ shoulders.
I would also separate our health care system from our social security system.
R. Garth Kirkwood MD
http://www.equalhealthcareforall.org
doctor_k@equalhealthcareforall.org
Actually social democracy rather than socialism- goes back several generations and was a response to the earlier and cruder idea that social reform could only be imposed by force.
My own country is probably half way between Sweden and the USA- but hey, what the heck: if you are born into any rich society you’ve won the sweep just by being born where you were born, compared to the miserable third world masses.
Nice post Jack.
Anyone got an example of a thriving developed country that doesn’t have some socialist policies?
Likewise, anyone got an example of a thriving developed country that doesn’t have some capitalist policies?
You need both.
Politicians who understand this and can articulate this are best-suited to lead.
I certainly agree that you need both capitalism and socialism in a society, with the former being preferred but the latter being used as a stop-gap method of protecting your society from rip-offs.
Certainly national and local defense are areas where socialism is advised. Can you imagine having a privatized state or local police force? Or fire departments?
And I also would favor a Medicare-for-all system, which isn’t socialized medicine but is socialized health care payments. Doctors and hospitals remain private. See Dr. Marcia Angell’s Canadian comparison HERE
I also think it’s time we look at developing a taxpayer-owned oil drilling and refining entity to compete with the OPEC countris that are jeopardizing our national security (with Exxon in complicity). Let it compete like the US postal service competes with UPS and FedEx, with the latter surviving it just fine. See Politicians should protect the public with new Oil-USA option
At this point I’d even support the taxpayers owning it’s own bank and giving credit to businesses and financing houses in competition with the current financial stalwarts.
Do I like this? No, I’m a capitalist. But we have crooked CEOs in the banking and investment and oil industries that are ripping off the public as they run unchecked.
Thanks for the link to Dr. Angell’s encompassing and clearly written analysis and comparison of the health care systems in Canada and the USA. She makes a compelling argument that the best thing for Canada to do is not to privatize (even partially) the system because this would undermine it; but rather to put more resources into it.
What about the USA? She gives a comparison of the different health care plans from the two presidential candidates and says that neither is a long term solution. I think she is being generous to use the word, “solution,” in the same sentence with either of these plans. Nevertheless, she has hit the nail on the head by explaining the relationship (in the USA) between costs and coverage, and she suggests that the only way to increase coverage and reduce costs is to change the system entirely. Since her article is about Canada, she doesn’t really explain a way of changing our system entirely. Fortunately, EQUAL HEALTH CARE FOR ALL is available. One of its basic premises is that the fundamental structure and thinking about our health care system must change. This means that clear and equal access for everyone to vital, comprehensive health care becomes the new bottom line and that the dollar bill assumes a secondary supportive role. Health care is aptly defined as the doctor—patient relationship, and an important part of the solution for the USA is to understand that sound, ongoing, independent-from-payer-influence doctor—patient relationships must become the deciders of all health care expenditure. The dollar bill, hospitals, pharmacy companies, technolgy companies, doctors, nurses, patients, patients’ families, doctors’ office staff, lawyers, health care executives, lobbyists, politicians and all other resources (meaning all the people living in America) need to understand that they are simply tools (resources) to accomplish these relationships for everyone and then to function in accord with that understanding. EQUAL HEALTH CARE FOR ALL actually explains fundamental ways for a single payer to interact with health care resources to accomplish the stated goal, while achieving good, acceptable profit margins for health care businesses and decent incomes for health care professionals. It really gets down to the nitty-gritty as opposed to spinning rhetoric, like the politicians, their health care advisors, and many other pundits, who work for one advocacy group or another.
R. Garth Kirkwood MD
http://www.equalhealthcareforall.org
doctor_k@equalhealthcareforall.org
Bart likes it he is moving to Alaska to get his check from PALIN!
Jack Lohman,
Zero taxes for companies that don’t out-source? How do we pay for healthcare, elections, etc?
In other words, where are you proposing to cut spending?
Corporate taxes are about 15% of total federal revenue, and over 25% of mandatory spending.
Right off the bat, you’re $750 billion in the hole.
http://www.cbo.gov/budget/budproj.shtml
If we had taxpayer-funded elections the reduction in special-interest giveaways would pay for the zero corporate taxes (which I understand is only 8% of federal revenues). Plus their legal and CPA costs to avoid taxes would not be passed on to consumers. Health care would be a push. Any new legitimate federal costs could be picked up by taxes to corporations that do outsource. See
http://moneyedpoliticians.wordpress.com/2008/03/17/why-zero-corporate-taxes-make-sense/
And let me add, David, that as a former CEO I know a lot of games one can play by creating an offshoring subsidiary and etc, and not that congress would ever do anything to punish their campaign contributors, if they did they’d have to close all the loopholes.
Sorry, you’re not going to get away with “cut the pork and the rest pays for itself.”
And, check the URL I posted for the share of corporate taxes in federal revenue (hit the blue “data” button at the bottom): 14.4% of 2007 revenues.
.
And, let me add that as someone with 25 years experience dealing with international business I appreciate your comments.
Who said “cut the pork and the rest pays for itself?” Pork represents a very small fraction of the budget, perhaps 1-2%. Corporate subsidies and giveaways are about $300-500 billion. I’ll accept your 14.4%, David, but my argument is that that is all passed down to the consumers anyway. It should be zero, to make corporations more competitive and to help keep jobs here.
Except for the corporations that outsource, and there we should sock it to them.
And having been in international sales, I sympathize with you. I hated foreign travel. Could never get caught up until it was time to leave….
In comment number 8, Mr. O’Rear asks, How do we pay for health care?
A clear answer to that question is provided in the book, EQUAL HEALTH CARE FOR ALL, coupled with the mechanisms for control of health care spending, while maintaining acceptable profit for health care businesses and providing clear and equal access to vital, comprehensive health care for everyone living in America. The book is now available as a free download from my web site.
R. Garth Kirkwood MD
http://www.equalhealthcareforall.org
doctor_k@equalhealthcareforall.org
DrK, I’ve read your book, and it is both excellent and recommend it to all (especially now that it is free!).
But for purposes of this discussion do you have a brief comparison of your plan versus Canada’s?
Yes, I can make the comparison:
CANADIAN SYSTEM: This system keeps costs in check in part by controlling the supply of certain services—for example, imaging and surgical facilities and the specialist physicians necessary to carry out the procedures. The result is the growth of waiting lists, which have become a real problem. (See Dr. Angell’s article, the link to which is provided in comment #4 above)
In the Canadian system, the dollar bill is determining patient treatment, even though it is a single payer system.
EQUAL HEALTH CARE FOR ALL: The doctor—patient relationship, the mutual trust developed bewteen the doctor and the patient, is the decider of medical therapy. The single payer simply pays the bill, without interference or obstruction, i.e., the waiting lines.
If waiting lines develop in my system, it will be because of increased demand and not because of the single payer’s efforts to control costs, by obstructing that demand. I see increased demand as a good thing, i.e., anyone being able to go to the doctor and being treated properly, as defined by that individual doctor—patient relationship.
Cost control in my system occurs not by efforts to obstruct the demand but rather by controlling, through a process of fair, tough negotiation, the price paid for services and product. This negotiation will be made much easier by removing business greed from the system, while achieving good, acceptable profit margins for health care businesses and generous payment to health care professionals.
The difference between EQUAL HEALTH CARE FOR ALL and the CANADIAN SYSTEM is that for the former, the doctor—patient relaationship is in charge of determining health care, while the single payer views itself and the dollar bill as in a supportive role. For the latter, the single payer is in charge of determining health care, which becomes subordinate to the dollar bill.
This new structure for our American health care system is the foundation of its potential success. And back to Dr. Angell’s article, a change for our entire system is necessary. I believe that the structure, which I have proposed, defines that change.
R. Garth kirkwood MD
http://www.equalhealthcareforall.org
doctor_k@equalhealthcareforall.org
Thanks DrK. A couple of questions:
How is it funded? Employers or taxpayers?
Are insurance companies still in the loop?
And all of that said, it seems that Obama is going to with and Kennedy’s plan will be adopted. Have you looked at that?
How is it funded?
See Chapter 3.
1) Mandatory health care fees from everyone living in America,
2) Unhealthy choice taxes,
3) Luxury taxes,
4) Current amounts of Medicare and Medicaid funds,
5) The significant savings from adopting a single payer system,
6) Control of price paid for service and product through tough, fair negotiation between health care businesses and the single payer,
7) Reduction of philanthropy to other countries.
All of this is discussed in detail in chapter 3 of the book. There are many other concepts throughout the book, such as A) mandatory utilization of advanced health care directives, B) requirement of federally approved (within a Department of Homeland Medicine) CON, certificate of need, for new health care construction, C) electronic record keeping across the entire country with the submitted records: office progress notes; hospital discharge summaries; operative and procedure reports, all functioning as part of the ongoing medical record, open for review by quality assurance, and as a bill, which generates immediate payment of a standardized fee and D) multiple other ways of operating, including malpractice tort reform, which will control spending at different levels.
Remember what I am proposing: clear and equal access to sound, ongoing, independent-from-payer-influence doctor—patient relationships for everyone, i.e., good health care without receiving a bill for same (this includes medicines as well). Everyone has already paid upfront. To actually achieve this will take a lot more than just funding. It will require that Americans change their behavior and force their politicians to do the same. If they are unable to do this, then maybe they deserve the mess that is our current health care system.
Employers are out of the loop and health insurance companies, HMOs, and the like are assigned a place in the history of medicine textbooks: “Mistakes Not To be Repeated.”
Everyone pays for the health care system, which I propose, not just current taxpayers. Indeed, if my system results in a surplus of money, I would think it might be a good thing to reduce the amount of payroll tax that goes toward Medicare and perhaps shift that to Social security. I want our health care system to be independent from the social security system.
I do not believe that Senator Obama’s plan will result in much except a huge increase in spending because he leaves the insurance companies in charge.
Currently, I think we are up to $2.3 trillion dollars in annual spending on health care. The previous data that I used for the book indicated that around $1.9 trillion was the figure. I believe the way to fund the system is to collect that amount of money, about $2.0 trillion dollars, and then make the system function within that budget. This making will not include obstructing the demand but rather removing greed from the system. I have outlined many different ways of doing that. Over time with my system, I expect to see either stabilization of our annual health care expenditure (with necessary changes indexed to inflation) or even a decrease in expenditure. Hospitals, drug companies, and technology companies and their mechanisms of doing business are a big part of the problem. These mechanisms need to change. They need to be subordinated to the concept that the ultimate goal is not increasing profit but rather enhancing the penetration of sound, ongoing, independent-from-payer-influence doctor—patient relationships into every American community. A single payer can accomplish this. And no matter what “-ism” is applied to this last statement, I believe that it is the right way to go.
R. Garth Kirkwood MD
http://www.equalhealthcareforall.org
doctor_k@equalhealthcareforall.org
You’ve got a lot of good ideas, Garth, but the trick is going to be getting them in front of the right people in congress to influence their current direction. I would suggest that you contact your senator and/or rep and ask for their health care specialist. They will be able to get your ideas heard by the right people. Unfortunately those here can’t help, and the time is short for you to get your ideas heard.