National Healthcare = Border Wall

Forums: Socialism, National Health Care, Border Wall, Trafficking, Economic Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

If a national system of healthcare is created, where people have to be citizens to get access to health care, then migrants will only be able to stay until they need health care badly enough to leave and go somewhere they can get it.

This would effectively channel non-citizens out of the US, and it is exactly what Democrats/Socialists want to do, so why do they oppose Trump's wall, exactly?

I think the reason they oppose it is because they don't want to stop desperate people from being able to sell themselves for money. 1) people may have no other way to get money to survive; 2) it stimulates the economy when traffickers and other shady businesses are able to employ cheap labor to achieve economic gains. 3) the drugs and prostitution facilitated by illegal trafficking creates incentives for certain business people to work harder to grow GDP more.

So it may be the reason Democrats/Socialists are against the border wall is because their national health care, education, and other citizen-oriented projects make it largely unnecessary; and those transnational activities it would affect are ones Democrats/Socialists prefer to tolerate in order to control, i.e. slavery.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 2,264 • Replies: 56

[+3] - Walter Hinteler - 01/17/2019I rest my case.

@livinglava,

This is another of your silly fantasies.

There are lots of countries with National Healthcare that don't have a border wall. Take Canada for example.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

This is another of your silly fantasies.

There are lots of countries with National Healthcare that don't have a border wall. Take Canada for example.

There are places you can live but you can't find a job or get access to health care without qualifying, which requires citizenship.

So as long as you are bringing money from outside the country, they will tolerate you living there and spending your money, which bolsters their GDP, but the moment you need a job or health care, you have to leave.

So national healthcare and job-permit restrictions ARE their border walls.

That's my point. The Democrats are against the wall, but they are for national healthcare and employment-permitting, so that is their wall.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Great! You solved it then!

Can we open the government now?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Great! You solved it then!

Can we open the government now?

If national healthcare and employment restrictions function as a border wall, why does the GOP oppose them?

Don't they want to use socialism to protect against non-citizen economic participation?

Or do they just want to outsource all the good jobs and have a big global free market?

2 Replies

@livinglava,

You make very silly posts. I am just playing with you.

0 Replies

@livinglava,

Quote:

If national healthcare and employment restrictions function as a border wall, why does the GOP oppose them?

Why don't you tell us why does the GOP oppose national healthcare.

1 Reply

@Real Music,

Real Music wrote:

Quote:
If national healthcare and employment restrictions function as a border wall, why does the GOP oppose them?

Why don't you tell us why does the GOP oppose national healthcare.

I can't speak for others, but I figured out years ago that national healthcare and other welfare state benefits were the excuse many Europeans use to resent immigration. It may be that they are just racist/xenophobic and they use welfare state protection as a justification for racism/xenophobia, but it is really hard to argue with someone when they say that they have really good healthcare, etc. and they can't afford to provide it to everyone in the world who wants to move there.

So the question is how to solve this problem of providing universal benefits without it turning into an impetus to keep newcomers out. The only possible answer to that is that every government would need to offer comparable levels of health care so that there would be no reason for anyone to migrate for better benefits. So the first question is whether that is even possible/realistic, and if so how when there is so much economic competition between national economies to control limited global resources.

Then, if you accept that there is necessarily always going to be a quality gradient between better and worse health care, how should access be granted? Should people have access to national systems of healthcare where they are entitled to access based on birthright citizenship? If they are, does that generate an impetus to block people from seeking citizenship via naturalization and/or birth?

My impression of the GOP's position is that people should be free to practice and seek healthcare without citizenship or membership in any club being a requirement. As such, I don't see why many GOP support employee group plans and other insurance 'clubs' where you pay for membership in a health plan. I would think they would support only individual self-pay as a way of funding healthcare, but of course they can't stop every form of inter-individual money transfer, such as family and friends supporting each others' costs, so then it is hard to prohibit insurance and other socializing of costs on a broader level than direct transfers at the individual level.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

livinglava wrote:

I can't speak for others, but I figured out years ago that national healthcare and other welfare state benefits were the excuse many Europeans use to resent immigration.

As far as I know, the only European national healthcare (actually called "National Health Service") is the one in the UK [precisely: National Health Service (England), NHS Scotland, NHS Wales, and Health and Social Care in Northern Ireland]
You get the benefits of it the moment you enter the country. Everyone.

We've got here in Germany a mandatory healthcare system (actually since 1881). I've never heard that it can be used to resent immigration.
Can you help me and tell, how that would work?

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

We've got here in Germany a mandatory healthcare system (actually since 1881). I've never heard that it can be used to resent immigration.
Can you help me and tell, how that would work?

Sure, it's simple. Talk to people who live as citizens in welfare states such as those in Scandinavia and western Europe and listen to people complain about immigrants and then ask them why can't people just be free to migrate where they want to live, and then listen to them explain how they have very good welfare states, but that they don't have the ability to take care of everyone in the world who wants to come there.

In short, if you have something to protect against migrants, then you have a reason to block migration. The only way to have a truly migration-friendly world is for there to be unlimited resources for people to live wherever they want. This could only be possible if totally sustainable lifestyles are the norm everywhere and thus no one wants to move to a privileged welfare state in order to get access to a richer standard of living than elsewhere; or rather the most basic socioeconomic level has to be one that is non-exclusive from a global perspective.

So, let's say there are drugs that can be cheaply mass-produced for anyone and everyone globally in need of them. Why shouldn't such drugs be available for poor people wherever they move? E.g. if poor people want to move to the US or Germany or Sweden or wherever and they don't cost the government money, and they don't commit crimes or harm the environment; then what is the problem with them migrating?

Is anti-migration a question of resource-management or racial/ethnic/class exclusion?

1 Reply

@livinglava,

livinglava wrote:

Sure, it's simple. Talk to people who live as citizens in welfare states such as those in Scandinavia and western Europe and listen to people complain about immigrants and then ask them why can't people just be free to migrate where they want to live, and then listen to them explain how they have very good welfare states, but that they don't have the ability to take care of everyone in the world who wants to come there.

Since I live, have relatives in Sweden and Austria I talkquite a bit with people living. Additionally to people in the Netherlands, the UK and France, where I have auqaintances.

Certain people really talk about that like you say - but your question is about healthcare and not social benefits.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Since I live, have relatives in Sweden and Austria I talkquite a bit with people living. Additionally to people in the Netherlands, the UK and France, where I have auqaintances.

Certain people really talk about that like you say - but your question is about healthcare and not social benefits.

Yes, because it is a fact that can't be skirted. If you have limited resources, i.e. because the world is divided into nation-states, then no nation state can provide benefits to everyone in the world who needs them unless there is a global economic culture that is so sustainable and affordable that anyone can migrate anywhere without putting undue economic burden on the government and people where they go.

So, if people could migrate to Scandinavia, for example, without requiring energy for heating, energy/money for importing food, money for health care and other needs, then what would be the problem with moving there? It could be fun and interesting to learn new language and culture, etc. For that to be possible, however, there have to be universally-available resources, e.g. because there is a global market for, say, generic drugs that cost the same everywhere. That way, whether you are in Europe or Africa or South America or North America or Asia or wherever, you can get the medicine and care you need without burdening others.

And if you're talking about designing a system of care and benefits that doesn't burden others, you are talking about eliminating socialism and replacing it with a totally-inclusive free market; i.e. a free market where access to work and purchasing power is unlimited for all the commodities that are necessary for basic living.

So when people in the US are calling for socialized healthcare and/or other welfare benefits, they are implicitly calling for non-citizens to be excluded; and thus for a wall. If they didn't want a wall, they would support a de-socialized free market system where healthcare and everything else that welfare states provide are achievable without government intervention, and then non-citizens would be free to participate in that economy and achieve their own healthcare, etc. with their own effort/labor/productivity.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

I disagree that healthcare can be called "national benefits" since people pay for it, be it via taxes (like in Sweden or the UK) or with "premiums" (payed equally by employer and employee) like here in Germany.

livinglava wrote:

So when people in the US are calling for socialized healthcare and/or other welfare benefits, they are implicitly calling for non-citizens to be excluded; and thus for a wall. If they didn't want a wall, they would support a de-socialized free market system where healthcare and everything else that welfare states provide are achievable without government intervention, and then non-citizens would be free to participate in that economy and achieve their own healthcare, etc. with their own effort/labor/productivity.

Since I don't know the concept of "socialized healthcare" especially not the one the USA, you might be right.

We've got here a constitutional (via our Basic Law, article 2, 2, 2 and article 20, 1) entitlement to health care, "social", not "socialised" ("Germany is a democratic and social federal state." Basic Law, article 20.)

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

I disagree that healthcare can be called "national benefits" since people pay for it, be it via taxes (like in Sweden or the UK) or with "premiums" (payed equally by employer and employee) like here in Germany.

You have to really scrutinize details sometimes to figure out where the structural determinants lie in these kinds of rules.

Here's on simple question: do people complain about non-citizens 'taking' jobs, benefits, and resources; or do they view the economy and benefits/resource access as being sufficiently abundant for anyone who wants to to participate? That's really the bottom line, I think.

livinglava wrote:

Since I don't know the concept of "socialized healthcare" especially not the one the USA, you might be right.

I think you are nitpicking semantic details instead of considering the bigger picture. Individual, self-pay health care would mean that providers would set prices and individuals would pay the price or seek another provider.

Some people and doctors/dentists/etc. operate as independent individuals, but many are enrolled in some kind of insurance/group-plan and many providers work with such plans because they can get more patients/work by doing so.

Still, such providers are free to take other clients without insurance, but then the question is what they charge and/or how much certain wealthy patients will pay out-of-pocket to gain favoritism.

Quote:

We've got here a constitutional (via our Basic Law, article 2, 2, 2 and article 20, 1) entitlement to health care, "social", not "socialised" ("Germany is a democratic and social federal state." Basic Law, article 20.)

So what do you understand the difference between 'social' and 'socialized' to mean then?

Finally, do you lack of health care access deters non-citizens from living there? What do you think the main deterrent is for moving there? E.g. work permit restrictions? employer discrimination? health care inaccessibility? Everyday discrimination/harassment/shunning by citizens against non-citizens?

In short, what constitutes "The Wall" where you live?

3 Replies

@livinglava,

I rest my case.

0 Replies

@livinglava,

livinglava wrote:

So what do you understand the difference between 'social' and 'socialized' to mean then?e Wall" where you live?

My usual personal understanding might be more in the colloquially use of those terms.

But the use in our constitution (and regarding healthcare insurance) is certainly meant more 'academical': social is a constitutionally determined state objective of the Federal Republic of Germany: it is a "social federal state". Accordingly, every person in Germany (not only every German citizen) has a basic right to the state taking care of him or her in extreme need.

Sozialisation (and the verb "to socialise", the adverb "socialised") are term used in Sociology.

0 Replies

@livinglava,

Okay, I'll respond.

livinglava wrote:

Individual, self-pay health care would mean that providers would set prices and individuals would pay the price or seek another provider.

Some people and doctors/dentists/etc. operate as independent individuals, but many are enrolled in some kind of insurance/group-plan and many providers work with such plans because they can get more patients/work by doing so.

Still, such providers are free to take other clients without insurance, but then the question is what they charge and/or how much certain wealthy patients will pay out-of-pocket to gain favoritism.

I'm not sure to countries you are referring regarding a "socialised" healthcare.

You can call it nickpicking, but I do think that we have got the oldest form of such a healthcare in Germany (actually starting in the late medieval period - my healthcare inurer is a follow-up company of the guild-healthcare associations).
Nearly all doctors/dentists/etc operate here as individuals with an own business, besides those employed in hospitals. (And in the forces, police, company physician etc)
Nearly all accept all insurance companies - those who only accept private insurance companies are either working in retirement, or have some legal reason(s) not to have got the licence from the mandatory health insurers.

Until a couple of years ago, we had had more than 3,000 mandatory health insurance companies, some only open regionally, others only for certain professions, others for company employees ....
This is reduced now to about 200, open for everyone everywhere in Germany. They have to take everyone, independent of his personal health situation, gender, age etc.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Nearly all accept all insurance companies - those who only accept private insurance companies are either working in retirement, or have some legal reason(s) not to have got the licence from the mandatory health insurers.

Until a couple of years ago, we had had more than 3,000 mandatory health insurance companies, some only open regionally, others only for certain professions, others for company employees ....
This is reduced now to about 200, open for everyone everywhere in Germany. They have to take everyone, independent of his personal health situation, gender, age etc.

So what happens if a tourist without insurance receives health care? How do they bill the individual? Or does some general fund get billed for anyone who is uninsured for whatever reason?

And what is the penalty if you fail to enroll in and pay for health insurance? Is there a fine? Do you have the option to just not enroll in an insurance plan year after year and just keep paying the fine? Are there plans that are very affordable/cheap? Do they cover less? What is the difference between different insurance plans?

1 Reply

@livinglava,

livinglava wrote:

So what happens if a tourist without insurance receives health care? How do they bill the individual? Or does some general fund get billed for anyone who is uninsured for whatever reason?

A tourist like anyone else staying here must have an health insurance.
Individuals aren't billed in the mandatory healthcare but the insurer.

livinglava wrote:

And what is the penalty if you fail to enroll in and pay for health insurance? Is there a fine? Do you have the option to just not enroll in an insurance plan year after year and just keep paying the fine? Are there plans that are very affordable/cheap? Do they cover less? What is the difference between different insurance plans?

When you are in the mandatory health insurance, you can't fail to pay for it: the fee is deducted from your wage, salary, pension or whatever money you get.

If you are a member with a private insurer, and don't pay the fees - the result is the same like you don't pay any other invoices.

Mandatory health insurers deliver all the same, plus some gimmicks by this one or the other. (For instance, I get money back, when I dp the prevention check-ups, get paid a certain percentage of the fees for fitness courses)

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

A tourist like anyone else staying here must have an health insurance.
Individuals aren't billed in the mandatory healthcare but the insurer.[/quote]
So entry is denied without proof of insurance?

It sounds like there's your border wall right there.

Quote:

When you are in the mandatory health insurance, you can't fail to pay for it: the fee is deducted from your wage, salary, pension or whatever money you get.

So you cannot work and make money to live without paying for insurance.

Is there any way for people to live without participating in the insurance economy? I assume not. They would have to try to live outside the economy, which would result in eviction from housing, lack of food and clothing, etc.

Basically, people just have to work and pay for insurance and they have no freedom to decide to withdraw their financial support from their insurance company.

Quote:

Mandatory health insurers deliver all the same, plus some gimmicks by this one or the other. (For instance, I get money back, when I dp the prevention check-ups, get paid a certain percentage of the fees for fitness courses)

So if you just don't ever go to the doctor, you pay more than if you go do the 'prevention check-ups?' That means that basically no one is just free to say no to health care.

1 Reply

National Healthcare = Border Wall

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know