# Reframing "socialism" into "natural human rights" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 2, 2020, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reframing-socialism-into-natural-human-rights/848789 "2020-03-02T15:19:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2020, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reframing-socialism-into-natural-human-rights/848789/181 "2020-03-06T15:23:35Z")
Not too sure where “giving away land” doesn’t equal “socialism” (and it was Native American’s land, not “federal land”, but that’s a whole different topic), and I’m 99% sure that 1861 America didn’t think “giving away free land” as “socialist”, given the relative newness of the term (‘socialism’ was coined in the 1830s), but it’s pretty easy to look back at the Homestead Acts and see, well, socialism in action. [Racist socialism](https://aeon.co/ideas/land-and-the-roots-of-african-american-poverty)… this is still America, after all… but still: socialism. ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2020, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reframing-socialism-into-natural-human-rights/848789/182 "2020-03-06T15:28:10Z")
Also, since the actual thread topic is about reframing, why not “reframe” the Homestead Acts into the socialist giveaway that they, in fact, were? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2020, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reframing-socialism-into-natural-human-rights/848789/183 "2020-03-06T15:30:05Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > Not too sure where “giving away land” doesn’t equal “socialism” (and it was Native American’s land, but that’s a whole different topic), and I’m 99% sure that 1861 America didn’t think “giving away free land” as “socialist”, given the relative newness of the term (‘socialism’ was coined in the 1830s), but it’s pretty easy to look back at the Homestead Acts and see, well, socialism. Cool, then show me where in socialism, either the definition or writings, that it DOES equal that. Because that’s what I’m asking. I don’t actually give a flying fuck what ‘99%’ of Americans think now or in 1861…I’m asking you to show me where in actual socialism there is anything concerning giving away public land (no horseshit about it being native American land, because then as now it wasn’t from the perspective of the federal government). I can easily look back on the Homestead Act (using Wiki in fact) and…well, I’m not seeing it. Which is why I’m asking you. See, the point here is, again, that people think they know what socialism is, and they are wrong. The Federal government giving away land (especially for the reasons they were doing it) isn’t socialism. Arguably, the Federal government taking the land from the Native Americans COULD be socialism, especially if you squint hard and really jump through hoops about a most agrarian society and means of production, but giving it away to private individuals? Nope…that’s the opposite of socialism. Though feel free to show me something in the definition or the various writings about socialism that says a core tenet (or, hell, even a peripheral squint) is the government giving public land away to private individuals who only have to demonstrate they are using it (and give the government some money) to own it outright and do with it as they please. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2020, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reframing-socialism-into-natural-human-rights/848789/184 "2020-03-06T15:35:39Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > Also, since the actual thread topic is about reframing, why not “reframe” the Homestead Acts into the socialist giveaway that they, in fact, were? Because it’s not? It’s basically trying to redefine what socialism is or was in an attempt to deceive or mislead, or just through ignorance. Socialism is about governments collectively controlling the means of production and controlling markets. It’s not about governments gathering taxes to be used to fund healthcare programs or giving away public land to gather funds and encourage migration (plus get those lands into production, with the goal of new tax revenue down the line). Instead of trying to make these things erroneously socialism, why not reframe the message and cut out the incorrect parts? If UHC or single payer healthcare is the target, then don’t try and frame it as socialism at all…frame it in terms of it’s cost to benefit, underscore and focus on those benefits to society and to the individual, show how it can save people money and give a superior product. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2020, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reframing-socialism-into-natural-human-rights/848789/185 "2020-03-06T17:44:43Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > You’re deliberately focusing on the “government run” and ignoring the “universal” in UHC. Nobody is asserting that government-run healthcare programs are somehow better purely on the basis that they are government-run. The same inefficiencies and fraud that mar the private sector currently mar public healthcare too. The point is that _universal_ healthcare programs are better, and more efficient, and that they only work if run by the government. > > So if you could drop this particular red herring, this conversation will be much more constructive. > > The savings come, again, from the inclusion of **everyone**. “Doubling” the current programs will not produce cost savings, apart from marginally reducing potential fraud. It would have other benefits, of course. > > What the hell are you talking about? > Ah. American exceptionalism. An argument that brooks no dissent nor indeed substantiation. > > Part of time you’re arguing that UHC doesn’t work and part of the time that it might work elsewhere but not in the US and part of the time you’re just complaining about Medicare and/or Medicaid minutiae. I’m getting worn out chasing this goalpost around the field. > > Again, you’ve seized on a factoid that is entirely irrelevant and are trying to build an argument around it. Where does the savings come from? Why is a government program that covers 100% of the people so much more efficient than one that covers only 50%? Just so you are not confused, my position is that UHC does not significantly reduce the growth of medical costs. The example of Europe shows that although Greece has the cheapest healthcare system in Europe, not one country has been able to copy that system and significantly lower their costs. That is not American exceptionalism, it is true of every country. You can not name one country in the world that was able to significantly reduce its spending on healthcare without an economic collapse. Changing to UHC usually means spending more, for example Taiwan’s spending in healthcare went up 10% the year it implemented UHC. In the 20 years since Thailand implemented UHC costs per capita have increased by 400%. What accounts for the difference in country spending is not the healthcare system since every country has a different system, but rather total consumer spending per capita. Countries that are poor, like Greece, spend much less on healthcare than rich countries like the US. The top four countries in the world for consumer spending are the US, Luxembourg, Switzerland, and Norway. Those are also the four countries where health spending is greatest. The US is an outlier because overall consumer spending is 33% higher than the second richest country, Switzerland. As long as the US is the richest country in the world it will have the highest healthcare costs in the world. ---
**Author:** ![Manwich](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e480ec/32.png) [@Manwich](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Manwich)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2020, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reframing-socialism-into-natural-human-rights/848789/186 "2020-03-06T20:37:51Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > Where does the savings come from? Why is a government program that covers 100% of the people so much more efficient than one that covers only 50%? > > Just so you are not confused, my position is that UHC does not significantly reduce the growth of medical costs. The example of Europe shows that although Greece has the cheapest healthcare system in Europe, not one country has been able to copy that system and significantly lower their costs. That is not American exceptionalism, it is true of every country. You can not name one country in the world that was able to significantly reduce its spending on healthcare without an economic collapse. Changing to UHC usually means spending more, for example Taiwan’s spending in healthcare went up 10% the year it implemented UHC. In the 20 years since Thailand implemented UHC costs per capita have increased by 400%. > > What accounts for the difference in country spending is not the healthcare system since every country has a different system, but rather total consumer spending per capita. Countries that are poor, like Greece, spend much less on healthcare than rich countries like the US. The top four countries in the world for consumer spending are the US, Luxembourg, Switzerland, and Norway. Those are also the four countries where health spending is greatest. The US is an outlier because overall consumer spending is 33% higher than the second richest country, Switzerland. As long as the US is the richest country in the world it will have the highest healthcare costs in the world. Ah yes Greece, Taiwan (one year after) and Thailand. Next use “consumer spending”, however that is measured, as a metric without naming numbers. USA can’t have nice things like people not dying from lack of health care because “consumer spending” is too high there. Do less consumer spending? ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2020, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reframing-socialism-into-natural-human-rights/848789/187 "2020-03-06T21:21:44Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > Where does the savings come from? Why is a government program that covers 100% of the people so much more efficient than one that covers only 50%? That’s not the correct or reasonable question or the distinction that anyone is making. Obviously if you had a single-payer program that eliminated coverage for half the population through some simple arbitrary criterion – say, you had to have a been a US citizen for at least 25 years – then it would cost half as much. The question is about the difference between a government-funded UHC program like single-payer and private insurance in the US model. And the reasons the UHC programs around the world are so much cheaper have been discussed a million times – there is no middleman doing individual risk rating and meddling in individual case adjudication, saving hundreds of billions in paperwork and administration, and there is greater accountability in provider costs and the ability to control them. > [@puddleglum](#): > > What accounts for the difference in country spending is not the healthcare system since every country has a different system, but rather total consumer spending per capita. Countries that are poor, like Greece, spend much less on healthcare than rich countries like the US. The top four countries in the world for consumer spending are the US, Luxembourg, Switzerland, and Norway. Those are also the four countries where health spending is greatest. The US is an outlier because overall consumer spending is 33% higher than the second richest country, Switzerland. As long as the US is the richest country in the world it will have the highest healthcare costs in the world. What does consumer spending have to do with health care costs? What does the number of TV sets or cars you own have to do with what it should cost to visit your doctor? It makes a little more sense to at least look at cost of living comparisons, since that affects the salaries of health care workers. According to [this chart](https://www.worlddata.info/cost-of-living.php), the US cost of living index is about average for the similar countries that are clustered around it – Australia, Sweden, New Zealand, UK, Belgium, France, Canada, etc. and the differences are relatively small. There is nothing in any of those numbers or in your logic that would account for US health care spending [being such an enormous outlier](https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/6220/economics/global-health-care-costs/). The reasons are the ones I’ve noted above. Some countries have single-payer UHC, some have regulated multi-payer, but no country on earth manages health care the way the US does or has costs that are even remotely similar. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2020, 10:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reframing-socialism-into-natural-human-rights/848789/188 "2020-03-09T10:34:32Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > The question is about the difference between a government-funded UHC program like single-payer and private insurance in the US model. And the reasons the UHC programs around the world are so much cheaper have been discussed a million times – there is no middleman doing individual risk rating and meddling in individual case adjudication, saving hundreds of billions in paperwork and administration, and there is greater accountability in provider costs and the ability to control them. I was going to write the usual lengthy screed that I and others write in these threads - and in several cases directly to **puddleglum** , who nonetheless keeps asking the same questions - but the above sums it up beautifully. There is far less administration (despite certain common assumptions about government-run enterprises), there isn’t a middleman taking a sizable chunk of the money for no added healthcare benefit, and the ability to control costs and fraud is much greater. Those are big, big savings. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2020, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reframing-socialism-into-natural-human-rights/848789/189 "2020-03-09T13:17:04Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > What accounts for the difference in country spending is not the healthcare system since every country has a different system, but rather total consumer spending per capita. Countries that are poor, like Greece, spend much less on healthcare than rich countries like the US. The top four countries in the world for consumer spending are the US, Luxembourg, Switzerland, and Norway. Those are also the four countries where health spending is greatest. The US is an outlier because overall consumer spending is 33% higher than the second richest country, Switzerland. As long as the US is the richest country in the world it will have the highest healthcare costs in the world. How certain are you, on a scale of 0-10, with zero being no certainty, and 10 being metaphysical certainty, that the numbers you are looking at are NOT measured in purchasing power parity? ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2020, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reframing-socialism-into-natural-human-rights/848789/190 "2020-03-10T14:41:30Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > . > What does consumer spending have to do with health care costs? What does the number of TV sets or cars you own have to do with what it should cost to visit your doctor? It makes a little more sense to at least look at cost of living comparisons, since that affects the salaries of health care workers. According to [this chart](https://www.worlddata.info/cost-of-living.php), the US cost of living index is about average for the similar countries that are clustered around it – Australia, Sweden, New Zealand, UK, Belgium, France, Canada, etc. and the differences are relatively small. There is nothing in any of those numbers or in your logic that would account for US health care spending [being such an enormous outlier](https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/6220/economics/global-health-care-costs/). The reasons are the ones I’ve noted above. Some countries have single-payer UHC, some have regulated multi-payer, but no country on earth manages health care the way the US does or has costs that are even remotely similar. I don’t have the time to give this the answer it deserves so I will try to summarize. As a country gets richer there is more to spend on luxuries and the percentage spent on necessities gets lower. Since the US has a high income relative to its cost of living Americans have more to spend on luxuries. As you second cite says America is 22% richer than Australia, 16% richer than Sweden, 39% richer than New Zealand, 33% richer than the UK, 26.5% richer than Belgium, 34% richer than France, and 26% richer than Canada. This gives Americans alot more money to spend on luxuries, but demand for most luxuries is very elastic, however demand for healthcare is inelastic so as prices go up demand stays high. This means over time as a country becomes richer healthcare cost go up the most. To see the full argument see [here](https://randomcriticalanalysis.com/why-conventional-wisdom-on-health-care-is-wrong-a-primer/). ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2020, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reframing-socialism-into-natural-human-rights/848789/191 "2020-03-10T16:33:02Z")
So in a nutshell that blog post says that there are enough sufficiently wealthy Americans to sustain the ongoing overinflation of healthcare costs for the time being. Unfortunately, this nifty analysis is little more than a post-hoc justification for a deeply inefficient system that leaves behind literally millions of the poorest members of society, a problem that in the medium- to long-term will have significant deleterious economic effects (not to mention the immediate deleterious effects on the people suffering under it). See also: the housing market. ---
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2020, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reframing-socialism-into-natural-human-rights/848789/192 "2020-03-10T17:56:25Z")
I’m sorry - who on earth is the author of that article and why should anyone consider their points? ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2020, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reframing-socialism-into-natural-human-rights/848789/193 "2020-03-10T18:19:19Z")
> [@Grey](#): > > I’m sorry - who on earth is the author of that article and why should anyone consider their points? Anonymous internet blogger. Cited [once](https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/11/anonymous-blogger-random-critical-analysis-proves-family-structure-matters/) in the _National Review_. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2020, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reframing-socialism-into-natural-human-rights/848789/194 "2020-03-10T19:10:43Z")
So no one I should care about. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2020, 9:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reframing-socialism-into-natural-human-rights/848789/195 "2020-03-11T09:53:10Z")
The other point to consider about that particular analysis: yes, the fact that Americans _on average_ are wealthy enough to sustain higher healthcare prices is true. But in the event of an economic downturn (as happened in 2008), although the average income level falls the extreme inelasticity of the healthcare market means that the prices remain high, and so what you get is a personal debt crisis with a surge in bankruptcies (and, in Kansas, people literally being thrown in jail for being unable to pay their medical bills). So not only does the article **puddleglum** linked to not justify the state of the US healthcare system, it provides further evidence of why it is so terrible for so many. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2020, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reframing-socialism-into-natural-human-rights/848789/196 "2020-03-11T14:27:27Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > The other point to consider about that particular analysis: yes, the fact that Americans _on average_ are wealthy enough to sustain higher healthcare prices is true. But in the event of an economic downturn (as happened in 2008), although the average income level falls the extreme inelasticity of the healthcare market means that the prices remain high, and so what you get is a personal debt crisis with a surge in bankruptcies Part of the challenge is that as in 1992 and 2008, in a recession it’s a winning pitch to say we’ll fix health care so that scenario won’t happen. Then the recession ends, good times return, and the driving motivation goes away, being replaced by the usual protection of corporate profit. > [@](#): > > (and, in Kansas, people literally being thrown in jail for being unable to pay their medical bills). Wait, WHAT??? ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2020, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reframing-socialism-into-natural-human-rights/848789/197 "2020-03-11T14:49:53Z")
> [@JRDelirious](#): > > Wait, WHAT??? A quick search turns up [a tweet](https://twitter.com/SenSanders/status/1226946434605502465) from Senator Sanders of Vermont. "\*People are being thrown in jail for being unable to pay their medical bills. To my mind, that is outrageous and un-American. ‘Medical debt’ should not exist. [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/coffeyville-kansas-medical-debt-county-in-rural-kansas-is-jailing-people-over-unpaid-medical-debt/](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/coffeyville-kansas-medical-debt-county-in-rural-kansas-is-jailing-people-over-unpaid-medical-debt/)\*" The linked CBS article, after inspection, reads in part: “_ **Tres Biggs went to jail for failing to appear in court** for unpaid medical bills._” Emphasis mine. She went to jail for failing to appear in court, not for medical debt. It is implied that two court hearings were missed before the judge held Ms. Biggs in contempt and issued a warrant of arrest. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2020, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reframing-socialism-into-natural-human-rights/848789/198 "2020-03-11T17:59:58Z")
> [@Grey](#): > > I’m sorry - who on earth is the author of that article and why should anyone consider their points? He’s a genius who has done alot of research. Who are you? ---
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2020, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reframing-socialism-into-natural-human-rights/848789/199 "2020-03-11T18:51:09Z")
An anonomous poster on the web just like them. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2020, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reframing-socialism-into-natural-human-rights/848789/200 "2020-03-12T12:17:24Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > A quick search turns up [a tweet](https://twitter.com/SenSanders/status/1226946434605502465) from Senator Sanders of Vermont. > > "\*People are being thrown in jail for being unable to pay their medical bills. > > To my mind, that is outrageous and un-American. > > ‘Medical debt’ should not exist. > > [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/coffeyville-kansas-medical-debt-county-in-rural-kansas-is-jailing-people-over-unpaid-medical-debt/](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/coffeyville-kansas-medical-debt-county-in-rural-kansas-is-jailing-people-over-unpaid-medical-debt/)\*" > The linked CBS article, after inspection, reads in part: > “_ **Tres Biggs went to jail for failing to appear in court** for unpaid medical bills._” > Emphasis mine. She went to jail for failing to appear in court, not for medical debt. It is implied that two court hearings were missed before the judge held Ms. Biggs in contempt and issued a warrant of arrest. > > ~Max Rather than reporting a tweet about a news story about a report, you could just link to [the original report](https://features.propublica.org/medical-debt/when-medical-debt-collectors-decide-who-gets-arrested-coffeyville-kansas/?ftag=MSF0951a18) which includes quite a few more details than the ones you highlighted. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reframing-socialism-into-natural-human-rights/848789.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reframing-socialism-into-natural-human-rights/848789.md?page=11)