DGDevin wrote:

I wonder how many of the people who curse the "socialism" of various
other national health care systems even know how they actually work?

Is a system where people are free to choose their doctors etc. and
where doctors work for themselves or a hospital actually "socialist"
just because payment comes through govt.-administered insurance?

Sure. Socialism is not defined by the actions of the consumer - it is
defined by control over the means of production or service rendered.

Is
the govt. requiring private insurance companies to offer at least one
policy meeting a minimum level of coverage "socialism"?

Um, not exactly. It IS over-regulation, though. An insurance policy is a
contract and the government should certainly have the means to enforce
contracts. But an agreement between a willing buyer and a willing seller
should be, in the main, sacrosanct.

In your example, I have no problem with the government requiring an
insurance company to OFFER specific, minimum, coverage, but it doesn't stop
there. The government also wants to set the PRICE the insurance company can
charge - and that's the problem.

Anyone can get health coverage in the U.S. - they just can't get it at a
price they're willing to pay.


Or is
"socialism" largely the preferred bogeyman of those who don't know
how the rest of the world does it, they just know they don't like
whatever it is?

That too.