Quo Vadis GOP?

[Sheilbh]

The NHS is socialist. I think we can all agree on that.

Except - as I say - GPs are private businesses and consultants consult with the NHS and they work with the NHS, but they also run their own (extremely rewarding) private practices.

The NHS runs hospitals and some out-patient care but that's about it. Because doctors had a huge incentive to not help some new government funded health system that would impact their ability to charge what they want. Nye Bevan who founded the NHS famously said he managed it because he "stuffed their mouths with gold".

[Berkut]

It is most certainly contradictory using that definition, since that definition rather *explicitly* states that social spending is not socialism, therefore there is no such thing as "socialist healthcare" to begin with. As has been explained like...20 times.

So the soviet union or cuba or north korea don't have socialist healthcare under that definition? I'm not an expert in how they were/are organized, but it seems unlikely that no healthcare system has met such a definition.

They are socialist systems that provide healthcare. Their "healthcare" itself is no more socialist then their road system or the fact that the sun rises in the east in North Korea, so it is a socialist sunrise.

OR you can say they DO have socialist healthcare because social spending IS socialism, in which case medicare and medicaid is socialist healthcare as well.

Pick either definition you want, and the tweet and your rabid defense of it is idiotic.

The organizational structure of the political body does not per se define every activity that happens under it.

[Jacob]

Does anyone in this thread have any idea how the healthcare systems in Cuba, North Korea and/ or the Soviet Union works/ worked?

[PDH]

And since we have confusion concerning "socialism" and elements here do not want to use collective or societal ownership of the means of production as the definition - just what IS socialism?

[The Brain]

In Soviet Union, ER rushed to you.

[alfred russel]

It is most certainly contradictory using that definition, since that definition rather *explicitly* states that social spending is not socialism, therefore there is no such thing as "socialist healthcare" to begin with. As has been explained like...20 times.

So the soviet union or cuba or north korea don't have socialist healthcare under that definition? I'm not an expert in how they were/are organized, but it seems unlikely that no healthcare system has met such a definition.

They are socialist systems that provide healthcare. Their "healthcare" itself is no more socialist then their road system or the fact that the sun rises in the east in North Korea, so it is a socialist sunrise.

OR you can say they DO have socialist healthcare because social spending IS socialism, in which case medicare and medicaid is socialist healthcare as well.

Pick either definition you want, and the tweet and your rabid defense of it is idiotic.

The organizational structure of the political body does not per se define every activity that happens under it.

I think you are an idiot. The tweet referenced "socialist healthcare schemes" that we must reject. You wrote: "Socialism is about the supply side of the economy, how things are organized in order to produce stuff, and who owns and controls that."

I suspect that there have been states where the means of production of healthcare were collectively owned--the medical equipment, the hospital building, etc. It is certainly possible to design such a scheme. Such a scheme would be accurately described as socialist based on how the means of production are organized, without regard to social spending.

[Valmy]

And since we have confusion concerning "socialism" and elements here do not want to use collective or societal ownership of the means of production as the definition - just what IS socialism?

If we go Marx it is public ownership of the means of production.

If we go by Louis Blanc it is public spending to try to cure social ills.

[Sheilbh]

If we go Marx it is public ownership of the means of production.

If we go by Louis Blanc it is public spending to try to cure social ills.

But that also goes to the question of whether socialism is necessarily revolutionary or can be obtained through legal and constitutional means (in certain circumstances). As that point inevitably leads to either fundamental restructure/revolutionary change or amelioration - it's the Erfurt Program issue.

Just for Yi - this is another example of not very useful words

[Razgovory]

Does anyone in this thread have any idea how the healthcare systems in Cuba, North Korea and/ or the Soviet Union works/ worked?

I know that the Soviet Union had a very robust and well funded mental health system.

[PDH]

If we go Marx it is public ownership of the means of production.

If we go by Louis Blanc it is public spending to try to cure social ills.

But that also goes to the question of whether socialism is necessarily revolutionary or can be obtained through legal and constitutional means (in certain circumstances). As that point inevitably leads to either fundamental restructure/revolutionary change or amelioration - it's the Erfurt Program issue.

Just for Yi - this is another example of not very useful words

Since we are talking about "socialism" not just marxism/communism, we need a broader definition.  Some socialism keeps a market based ideology, others shun it.  Some advocate small scale communal ownership of production, others seek state (or post state once the nirvana is reached) ownership.  As mentioned, some see socialism only coming about due to revolution, others through small incremental steps within a governing system.

The one thing that seems common to all the definitions seems to be that there is some communal/social ownership of production, and even that is suspect a bit as how far down does "production" go?

[Berkut]

It is most certainly contradictory using that definition, since that definition rather *explicitly* states that social spending is not socialism, therefore there is no such thing as "socialist healthcare" to begin with. As has been explained like...20 times.

So the soviet union or cuba or north korea don't have socialist healthcare under that definition? I'm not an expert in how they were/are organized, but it seems unlikely that no healthcare system has met such a definition.

They are socialist systems that provide healthcare. Their "healthcare" itself is no more socialist then their road system or the fact that the sun rises in the east in North Korea, so it is a socialist sunrise.

OR you can say they DO have socialist healthcare because social spending IS socialism, in which case medicare and medicaid is socialist healthcare as well.

Pick either definition you want, and the tweet and your rabid defense of it is idiotic.

The organizational structure of the political body does not per se define every activity that happens under it.

I think you are an idiot. The tweet referenced "socialist healthcare schemes" that we must reject. You wrote: "Socialism is about the supply side of the economy, how things are organized in order to produce stuff, and who owns and controls that."

I suspect that there have been states where the means of production of healthcare were collectively owned--the medical equipment, the hospital building, etc. It is certainly possible to design such a scheme. Such a scheme would be accurately described as socialist based on how the means of production are organized, without regard to social spending.

Then the US heathcare is already socialist, since plenty of hospitals are publicly owned- Universities, for example, run plenty of hospitals and grounds and medical equipment.

So yeah...try again and tell us how there is some clear distinction between medicare and medicaid as it exists in the US today and these "socialist healthcare systems" you are so terrified about that you feel the need to take up the cause of the idiot wing of the GOP in order to protect us from them.

It is apparently NOT government ownership of hospitals, grounds, and medical equipment, since we already have those things.

[Grey Fox]

For most of us, our systems are Single Payer and the government is that payer.

It is what I hear when Americans say "socialist healthcare systems" and why they are afraid of it.

[Berkut]

For most of us, our systems are Single Payer and the government is that payer.

It is what I hear when Americans say "socialist healthcare systems" and why they are afraid of it.

Yeah, but that doesn't make sense either, at least not in this case, since AR is *contrasting* this "socialist healthcare system" with medicare and medicaid, which today is in fact exactly that single payer system you described.

There is no proposal, real or imagined, in American politics that is different in kind (rather then scale) from the current (apparently) non-socialist socialist healthcare systems.

[alfred russel]

Then the US heathcare is already socialist, since plenty of hospitals are publicly owned- Universities, for example, run plenty of hospitals and grounds and medical equipment.

So yeah...try again and tell us how there is some clear distinction between medicare and medicaid as it exists in the US today and these "socialist healthcare systems" you are so terrified about that you feel the need to take up the cause of the idiot wing of the GOP in order to protect us from them.

It is apparently NOT government ownership of hospitals, grounds, and medical equipment, since we already have those things.

I'm not taking up anyone's cause.

Using your previously mentioned framework regarding socialism and the means of production, medicare and medicaid are not socialist. It is conceivable for them to be threatened by "socialist schemes" even if some portion of the healthcare system is socialized.

It isn't only conceivable but while I don't know much about the congresswoman (including how to spell her name, so I won't try) I bet she would say that taking public ownership of private hospitals, grounds, and medical equipment would indeed be a socialist scheme that would undermine US healthcare.

[DGuller]

In Soviet Union, ER rushed to you.

That's more true than intended.  In Soviet Union ambulances often delivered medical treatment rather than just stabilization and transportation to a hospital.  They could arrive, treat you, and then leave without you.