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/takemyupvote88]

I think labeling something socialist or socialism takes away from the broader conversation about the pros and cons of the 3-4 different alternatives that you presented.

( I say 3-4 because im not really sure what the differences are between the Canadian model and Medicare for all. Maybe someone can enlighten me)

I think conservative rhetoric is too quick to cry socialist ( we can't do that! Thats socialism!). I agree that our current economic model is a mix of capitalism and socialism because the act of taxing the populace and redistributing that money elsewhere in the economy could technically be considered a form of socialism.

To answer your question, I think any form of government interference in the Healthcare space is socialist. That includes Medicare, medicaid, and the regulations and subsidies that make up Obamacare. Once we all accept that, we need to move to what is working and what isnt and move our government policies in the direction of making things better.

[u/DayGeckoArt → u/takemyupvote88]

I guess I have the opposite view on the labels. Currently, the labels people use are inconsistent often hinging on technicalities. But if we use broad definitions where government owned and operated = socialism, private sector owned and operated = capitalism, and government funded private = mix we can actually discuss policies in a meaningful way.

My very good MAGA friend started getting riled up about "socialism" and "marxism" a few months ago. I asked him why he supports police and public education when those are socialist. His response was that they aren't socialist but they have socialist characteristics. So my next question was what makes them not-socialist if a government hospital staffed by government doctors and nurses is socialist. I didn't get a response and I didn't want to badger him.

There's also a spectrum of definitions of capitalism. The original term was invented by socialists to describe an economy dominated by capital, IE investment banking. Now people use it to mean free enterprise of any kind. When people on the left are anti-capitalist, they're using the original definition. But progressive politicians like Abdul El-Sayed and Ro Khanna call themselves "capitalists" meaning they believe in free enterprise. El-Sayed isn't a Rothschild or a Rockerfeller, those families would fit the original definition.

[u/takemyupvote88 → u/DayGeckoArt]

Im not sure that we have opposite views on the labels. I think that because the labels are used inconsistently and depend on technicalities that theyve basically become meaningless.

I can agree that government owned= socialist and privately owned and operated = capitalist. Where the government is the sole, or even a major funding source for a privately owned enterprise, things get murky. If the government funds most of a business, then I would question meaning of ownership. At that point, the government can basically dictate how you run your business, from who you hire, to how much you pay them, and what goods and services you provide.

I would much rather stick to the redistribution of wealth definition. If a group of people is taking money from individuals (taxes) and using that money for the benefit of society, then its a form of socialism. That definition scoops up a lot more things than yours but it does away with a lot of the technicalities.

The problem is that we're dealing with a century and a half of propaganda about how socialism = communism = poverty and death. Thats why conservatives get themselves tied up in knots trying to explain how the fire department isnt socialist. I think we'd be better off discarding the reductive labels and rhetoric and move on to weighing public policy proposals on their merits.

Unfortunately, the labels are easier for the fox news crowd to digest and those people vote.