Socialism is kind of like a compromise between Communism (where all the "means of production"--aka businesses, industries, and services--are all owned and run by the government) and a purely capitalist system, where everything is run by the free market. In socialist country, most of the economy is capitalistic but services and industries deemed essential (such as health care) are owned and managed by the government, paid for by taxes.
Since most governments have at least some key services owned by the government--municipal tap water, for example, though that has been increasingly privatized internationally--being considered a socialist country is usually a matter of degree (Canada is more socialist than the US but less than some other countries) than of rigid, mutually exclusive categories.
Socialism has become aa negative term for some reason in the US, but as near as I can tell few people really understand what it means. For example, a lot of people have accused Obama of being socialist, and yet he has not proposed nationalizing anything--he has proposed some increases in government regulations, but not outright government ownership.
"But all in all, I prefer knowing I CAN get treatment, even if I have to wait (which I rarely ever do) to realizing that I CANNOT pay for the treatment I need (assuming I'm really poor and can't even afford insurance, etc)"
Part of the reason health insurance is such a huge issue in the United States is that the cost of health insurance has gone up the to point that it's not only the very poor who can't afford health care. My mom tells me that her insurance costs her employer $15,000 a year, if I recall correctly--that's a big chunk of change for an individual to pick up on their own, and that doesn't include my father's benefits. Assuming his cost similarly, that's $30,000 a year for a couple--and my parents both have white collar jobs but they aren't all that wealthy. As my mom has a serious chronic illness, it would be very expensive, if not out right impossible, for her to get insurance on her own, which is one of the reasons she refuses--despite her health problems--to retire until she can keep her health benefits.
That's also why they talk about people being trapped in jobs because of health benefits. If my husband were to change his job, we would have a minimum of 6 months between when we lose the one coverage and before any coverage from his new employer would kick in. There are temporary plans you can get to cover those gaps, but they are limited in duration (so if you don't get insured within that period, your are out of luck) and very expensive.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-12-09 04:21 pm (UTC)Since most governments have at least some key services owned by the government--municipal tap water, for example, though that has been increasingly privatized internationally--being considered a socialist country is usually a matter of degree (Canada is more socialist than the US but less than some other countries) than of rigid, mutually exclusive categories.
Socialism has become aa negative term for some reason in the US, but as near as I can tell few people really understand what it means. For example, a lot of people have accused Obama of being socialist, and yet he has not proposed nationalizing anything--he has proposed some increases in government regulations, but not outright government ownership.
"But all in all, I prefer knowing I CAN get treatment, even if I have to wait (which I rarely ever do) to realizing that I CANNOT pay for the treatment I need (assuming I'm really poor and can't even afford insurance, etc)"
Part of the reason health insurance is such a huge issue in the United States is that the cost of health insurance has gone up the to point that it's not only the very poor who can't afford health care. My mom tells me that her insurance costs her employer $15,000 a year, if I recall correctly--that's a big chunk of change for an individual to pick up on their own, and that doesn't include my father's benefits. Assuming his cost similarly, that's $30,000 a year for a couple--and my parents both have white collar jobs but they aren't all that wealthy. As my mom has a serious chronic illness, it would be very expensive, if not out right impossible, for her to get insurance on her own, which is one of the reasons she refuses--despite her health problems--to retire until she can keep her health benefits.
That's also why they talk about people being trapped in jobs because of health benefits. If my husband were to change his job, we would have a minimum of 6 months between when we lose the one coverage and before any coverage from his new employer would kick in. There are temporary plans you can get to cover those gaps, but they are limited in duration (so if you don't get insured within that period, your are out of luck) and very expensive.