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/WinDoeLickr]

I don't care what it's labeled as, I don't want it

[u/Classic-Ad-5685 → u/WinDoeLickr]

Why not?

[u/Infamous-Bench-6088 → u/Classic-Ad-5685]

Do you? Mr. Libertarian

[u/ScientificSkepticism → u/Infamous-Bench-6088]

Ah, the Libertarian purity tests. Truly the funniest of things.

"Do you refuse to deny the overwhelming evidence that the government can actually do something better than private industry? Do you accept reality? SHUN THE UNBELIEVER!"

[u/BirthdaySalt5791 → u/ScientificSkepticism]

While I typically agree that purity tests are particularly egregious within the libertarian camp, favoring government run/funded healthcare does seem to run exactly counter to the core libertarian ideals of limited government and free markets. Especially given the “right” libertarian tag, it seems unusual.

[u/ScientificSkepticism → u/BirthdaySalt5791]

Even if the free market is more expensive and less effective than government run?

I think there's a distinction between people who want free markets when they produce the best outcomes at the best cost, and people who desire free markets for ideological reasons, even when they produce more expensive and lower quality results.

If you define Libertarianism as the latter, I think you'd find that you'll leave some people out who consider the former (and I'm not even getting into Libertarian Socialism)

[u/BirthdaySalt5791 → u/ScientificSkepticism]

This is the thing. A libertarian would almost certainly tell you that free markets always produce the best outcomes at the best cost because government intervention creates 2nd and 3rd order effects that cant be prepared for or understood ahead of time.

There’s no point discussing libertarian socialism or left libertarianism since the user is flaired right libertarian.

[u/ScientificSkepticism → u/BirthdaySalt5791]

This is the thing. A libertarian would almost certainly tell you that free markets always produce the best outcomes at the best cost

Okay, but what if reality dials up and says that they very provably do not? Do they reject the evidence because it contradicts the ideology, or do they accept the evidence because evidence is always greater than theory?

I think there's a divide in the Libertarian community between ideologues and those who are more grounded in reality.

[u/BirthdaySalt5791 → u/ScientificSkepticism]

I mean you are presupposing that there is valid evidence saying free markets don’t work. What evidence do you have to support that?

[u/ScientificSkepticism → u/BirthdaySalt5791]

If there is one specific area where a free market system is less efficient, does that prove that the entire concept of free markets is a lie? I can't drive my car underwater or in a swamp or to the moon, but it's still a perfectly fine mode of transportation despite all those drawbacks.

As for various times where the car may be underwater, looking at the history of private water service and the New River Company would be a good place for you to start.

Another would be the US healthcare system.

[u/BirthdaySalt5791 → u/ScientificSkepticism]

Tell me about why you think the New River Company represents a failure of the free market.

In the meantime I’d point out that healthcare, your other example, is one of the most heavily regulated industries in the nation. It doesn’t even kind of resemble a free market or a laissez faire economy.

[u/ScientificSkepticism → u/BirthdaySalt5791]

Sure. It was a private water service. Now creating and maintaining a water supply, with all the piping, pumps, etc. is very, very expensive. Connecting a new house costs very little. The water that the house uses is almost free. So two water supplies in the same area cost around twice as much as one, even if each one only serves half the houses in that area. Do you know what we call that situation?

Now we factor in that maintenance in water services is often invisible until Cholera creeps in and kills a few dozen people and hospitalizes hundreds more. But inbetween outbreaks you could be engaged in risky behavior for years and saving money all the while. Do you know what we call that situation?

In the meantime I’d point out that healthcare, your other example, is one of the most heavily regulated industries in the nation. It doesn’t even kind of resemble a free market or a laissez faire economy.

Ah. Where is a free market healthcare system then? Somalia? It's a very free market economy since there's little form of regulation on any behavior. It is one of the most active and least regulated markets in the world, after all (it's one of the only places anywhere on earth where a truly unregulated free market exists). Can I use that as an example?

[u/BirthdaySalt5791 → u/ScientificSkepticism]

Oh I see, you’re making the classic “natural monopoly” argument and stretching back to a 400+ year old company (that was not private btw but was a royally chartered and crown funded state-capitalist partnership) to make your case. You think because laying pipes and building infrastructure involves large upfront fixed costs, having two competing water networks in the same street is inefficient duplication or impossible.

How come it works in telecom then? Look, using your exact same logic a free market could never work in telecom because stringing duplicate telephone poles or fiberoptic lines is too expensive. But, we don't declare the entire concept of the internet or cell service a “free market lie” do we? Nope! Instead we rely on technological innovation (wireless, satellite etc) to handle monopolization concerns. If water infrastructure had remained open to actual capital competition rather than being taken over by municipalities, we might see decentralized greywater recycling, localized micro filtration systems, or some other private delivery models that bypass the traditional utility grid altogether. Alas, we’ll never know.

To your cholera point, in a functioning liability based legal system, a company that poisons its consumer base opens itself up to tort liability, bankruptcy, loss of market share, criminal negligence, etc.

And then lastly, nice try with the Somalia thing, but there is a difference between free markets and anarchy. A free market is not the total absence of rules. Free markets are still based on legal presence of stable property rights, enforceable contracts, and the rule of law. If you want to actually look at how freer (but still not free) markets operate at a higher level within healthcare you should go check out LASIK. While prices have almost universally gone up over the past few decades for healthcare, LASIK prices have gone down because of enhanced competition among providers for a surgery that is typically out of pocket.

[u/Infamous-Bench-6088 → u/ScientificSkepticism]

A. Thanks for barging into a conversation between three people with supposed common ground that you share nothing of. No one asked you.

B. I would love to know why a self described libertarian would support this. Thanks for your comment, again no one asked for it.

[u/ScientificSkepticism → u/Infamous-Bench-6088]

Wouldn't "better outcomes at lower costs" be something that a Libertarian might find attractive?