> Criticizing a system built mostly on government handouts
This was not what I was criticising. It was about turning someone’s life into entertainment and, in this extreme GoFundMe example, the right to life becoming a function of how entertaining one is.
> (by definition a socialist or communist structure)
Socialism and communism are not about government handouts. Both are about controlling the means of production (industries, farms) by the people (implying democratic representation). You might correctly argue that the Soviet Union was not a shining beacon of how to implement it, and this is what details almost every discussion on the subject.
There isn't any mention of socialism, or anything related to it in your link.
It sounds like a classic balance of payments issue (importing too much compared to exports/tourism/other revenues) being hit with an exploding in price critical import (oil). Sri Lanka had the same issues just a few years back, was it "socialism" too?
What a shittily written article, staining the Adam Smith name.
Nationalising a bunch of critical industries isn't "socialism" and the article utterly fails to explain how it is or why it's related. Historical UK, and modern France, Russia, UAE, Saudi Arabia also had multiple crucial industries which were fully nationally owned. Were they socialist too?
Private companies needed to obtain license [0] from the govt to start or to expand.
Some companies were even prosecuted for producing more than what was allowed. This was at least Nehru's (first Prime Minister) version of Democratic Socialism.
That's still not what socialism means. Absurdly tight government control over the economy, and the existence of a private market economy, doesn't mean that workers owned the means of production.
> Criticizing a system built mostly on government handouts (by definition a socialist or communist structure) as being a late-stage capitalism problem shows you’ve got no clue what these terms actually mean.
That's just the capitalists outright purchasing the legislators, so Walmart can employ people at minimum wage and let the taxpayers foot the bill for their healthcare and food stamps.
>so Walmart can employ people at minimum wage and let the taxpayers foot the bill for their healthcare and food stamps.
Do those people magically start needing food and healthcare once they're employed by walmart? Why is it suddenly walmarts problem the moment they become a walmart employee? Would anyone stakeholder in this situation (the employees, society, walmart) be better off if the employee was no longer employed?
I think the argument is that their labour is being subsidised which amounts to a benefit for BigSam.
If we had a USB or negative income tax system then that benefit would be clearly spread across the whole population evenly but instead the stamp system has many rules and restrictions that allow Walmart to strategically benefit by both positioning the role at just the right amount to qualify for the benefit (but no more) and frustratingly by being the vendor honouring the stamps.
>I think the argument is that their labour is being subsidised which amounts to a benefit for BigSam.
Ironically negative income taxes are closer to a labor "subsidy", than food stamps, because they're contingent on income (ie. labor), unlike food stamps which don't give you more money if you make more.
In that case, we’re not in a capitalist system at all, but a capitalist-socialist hybrid. Arguably, we’ve been in the hybrid since the New Deal, and it seems to have inherited the same socialism issues China is also grappling with.
One third of all donations on GoFundMe are for medical expenses. [1] the very vast majority of that must be Americans.
I’m staggered how many Americans are steadfastly against socialized healthcare for all, but immediately turn to GoFundMe in desperation when their insurance tells them to take a hike.
> in desperation when their insurance tells them to take a hike.
Socialized healthcare is good because it doesn't mean you're tied to a job or worried about in/out network hospitals. But, care would still be rationed as it doesn't magically provide us with infinite resources.
I just like to point this out since there are very good arguments for socialized care in the US, but this isn't one of them.
But it is much, much better that what the US has now. Every other developed country spends vastly less and gets much better health outcomes. [1]
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Adopt socialized healthcare now, even though it is imperfect, and then work on improving it as time goes on. That is the path to making stuff better.
It isn't a case of perfect being the enemy of good, it is that you're looking at what might potentially be the most corrupt, captured and incapable healthcare regulator in the modern world and advocating that they get even more power. That seems like a bad strategy. The US healthcare system won't be fixed by dissociating patients from the process even further.
The obvious thing to do is move power away from the regulator and make it easier for consumers to pay directly for treatment. It works for almost everything else.
It's not unreasonable to argue for socialized healthcare based on treatment denials in private healthcare, since there are impactful differences in the incentives driving denials and rationing in private vs socialized healthcare. I agree that the argument should be more nuanced than just "denials happen".
The incentive for private health insurers is to raise prices and increase denial rate until people are unwilling or unable to pay. People will pay until they can't, since they don't want to die, so this can be pushed pretty far. The incentive for socialized healthcare, at least in principle, is to provide people with as much treatment as is feasible for the amount of incoming funds. In one case rationing is driven by a need to remain solvent and in the other case it's driven by profit maximization. The different incentives lead to significant differences in how people are impacted by the denials/rationing that necessarily exist in both systems.
There is still out-of-network healthcare (i.e. specific services or entire healthcare providers not covered by single payer) in many countries with universal healthcare. But it is usually clear which is which.
> There is still out-of-network healthcare in many countries with universal healthcare
Can you provide links?
I've personally used the healthcare systems in Australia and Canada for two decades each, and also for a short time in the UK. I've never heard of this.
Link: https://www.reginamaria.ro/ - one of the biggest networks in the country. I have to use it for most of the regular stuff and I pay a subscription plus out of pocket for some consultations. This is on top of paying 10% of my gross income to socialized healthcare money stealing scheme.
The treatment provided will be similar to the NHS, but with less waiting (if relevant) and nicer facilities, such as private rooms rather than shared wards in hospital.
There is a small handful of clinics in Japan that do not accept the universal health insurance, such as specialist ones targeting English-speaking expats.
The US healthcare system is insanely expensive. Socialized healthcare is not the solution to this particular problem. Spending the most $ amount in the world with not the best results raises the question about efficiency. Solve that first, otherwise it is just money pit and no realistic amount of socialized money can fill it.
Americans are presented with a false dichotomy: Socialized medicine or US-style privatized healthcare; where the healthiest are charged 10% or more of their income and the neediest are dumped onto the US government.
It seems like Americans have a knack for coming up with the most convoluted ways of accessing healthcare that are still expensive and inconvenient. Your idea still require paying out of pocket, requires taking unpaid time off work, flights, relying on the healthcare system of a foreign country and more.
That is the worst possible "healthcare" situation I can imagine.
Dozens of countries have shown you pay a lot less and get much better outcomes [1] when you just provide healthcare to everyone all the time, the same way high school, roads and street lights are provided.
Why wouldn't you want that? Why on earth would you think flying to some foreign country is a better solution?
> Americans have a knack for coming up with the most convoluted ways of accessing healthcare
Medical tourism is alive and well even within Europe [1]. And an entire genre of concierge medicine in America caters to rich Europeans (alongside rich Middle Easterners and Asians).
I’m not saying it’s a great thing but when things are messed up you need a work around. That’s the work around, the money from go fund me is probably not enough the health care is that unaffordable
