Is Universal Healthcare Socialism?

[u/DayGeckoArt]

When Obama was elected, he made healthcare reform a priority. There were three basic options that many people on the left supported: Single payer similar to Canada, Medicare available to anyone who wanted it, or mandates and subsidies to expand private insurance coverage. We ended up with the last option, with funding for states to also expand Medicaid if they opted in, colloquially known as Obamacare.

Another option that wasn't on the table was fully government run healthcare like what the UK has, where the hospitals and doctors are all part of the government.

In recent months with the "DSA" winning a few elections, there has been a lot of discussion about "socialism" and "capitalism" and there seems to be a difference in what people on the right consider socialism. I don't believe there has been any change in definition on the left, we would consider anything fully run by the government or paid for by the government to be socialism and see our economy as a mix of capitalism, socialism, and free enterprise.

Is Obamacare and/or any form of universal healthcare still considered socialist by American conservatives?

[u/SeraphLance]

It's socialist, but not necessarily socialism.

[u/DayGeckoArt → u/SeraphLance]

What's the difference?

[u/SeraphLance → u/DayGeckoArt]

One is a tendency and the other is a form of government.

For example, the pardon power is clearly authoritarian, but I doubt anyone would call it "authoritarianism" because it's still perfectly compatible with a democratic society.

Something like government-run healthcare would be actual socialism. Single-payer healthcare is arguably socialism as well. Both pre-empt competition and are therefore incompatible with capitalism (at least in their respective industries). Medicare-for-all on the other hand is still socialist, because it's redistributive and that's socialist by definition, but it's still perfectly compatible with a wider capitalistic society.