|
Title: What's wrong? Post by: Хahar 🤔 on February 02, 2008, 11:17:46 PM This cycle, I've noticed a lot of Republicans refer to certain health-care plans as "socialized medicine". While even someone as thick as me realizes that that term is meant as an insult, what, really, is the problem with "socialized medicine"? Why is the term used perjoratively?
Title: Re: What's wrong? Post by: Verily on February 02, 2008, 11:20:30 PM Because OMG SOCIALIZM ARE TEH EVILL!!!!111!!1
More or less. The term is actually the widely used and accepted term for universal health care in Europe, so part of it may be trying to appeal to nativist/nationalist sentiments in associating the plans with Europe. Title: Re: What's wrong? Post by: gmo on February 02, 2008, 11:25:10 PM ..."socialized medicine"? Why is the term used perjoratively? But yeah, labeling it as something dominated by the government rather than the saintly "you and your doctor" is the point. Title: Re: What's wrong? Post by: Torie on February 02, 2008, 11:27:19 PM This cycle, I've noticed a lot of Republicans refer to certain health-care plans as "socialized medicine". While even someone as thick as me realizes that that term is meant as an insult, what, really, is the problem with "socialized medicine"? Why is the term used perjoratively? Socialized medicine means it is run by the government, and subject to government price controls, probably killing off drug research, and resulting in a lowest common denominator as to the quality of medical care. That is why it is a perjorative term, and that is why both Hillary and Obama are careful not to go there whole hog, all at once. Having said that, I am a bit of a socialist on this issue myself, but socialist lite, and more oriented towards the Mitt approach. All must be insured, but through private insurance, with government subsidies to those who cannot afford to pay some or all of the premiums. I hope this helps. |