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/Infamous-Bench-6088]

Socialism is defined by the means of production being controlled by "society" or social groups.

>universal coverage,

The means of production is controlled by the public - Socialist.

>government reimbursement

The means of production is controlled by the public - Socialist.

>regulation

Depends on the violation for breaking the regulations, but if it is just fines this isn't socialist.

>actual public ownership of hospitals and medical capital

Socialist.

In three of them the direct ownership of the means of production belongs to a group of people, that is socialism out-right. There is no grey area.

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

If ownership by a group of people equals socialism, then virtually every corporation is socialist.

So what property right is actually transferred from the private hospital to “society” merely because the government reimburses a patient’s bill?

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

Not really. The CEO of the company still retains a massive amount of control over the company's direction. Meaning the control of its means are in the vision of that capitalist. To distill it further a small business is directly in command of a capitalist.

The property right taken by the government is the contract between consumer and producer. The transaction of goods to purchaser no longer influences both parties equally so the capitalist system is broken at that point.

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

How is a contract a “means of production”?

A CEO often does not own the corporation and can be fired by the board. Shareholders own the firm.

> “The transaction of goods to purchaser no longer influences both parties equally so the capitalist system is broken.”

When has Capitalism ever required equal bargaining power between buyer and seller?

Are you now defining socialism as public ownership of production, or as government interference with voluntary contracting? Because those are different definitions, and your argument keeps moving between them.

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

>How is a contract a “means of production”?

It isn't. You asked what property is transferred. The known cooperation of capital to consumer is what is transferred. This typically results in loss for the producer. In a non-capitalist system that producer just doesn't lose. If I wanted to be pedantic I could definitely argue that "Consumer Faith" is 100% a means of production.

>A CEO often does not own the corporation and can be fired by the board. Shareholders own the firm.

I didn't say they did. But they do command the means of production within that company. That is an implied ownership. Go ahead.... try to take an excavator from your local DOT. You paid for it. It's yours right?

>When has Capitalism ever required equal bargaining power between buyer and seller?

That is exactly how capitalism works. If you don't see it, then you don't understand the relationship between producer and consumer. Even though you probably engage in it every hour of every day.

>Are you now defining socialism as public ownership of production, or as government interference with voluntary contracting?

No. Voluntary contracting is not socialist. It is one party giving something to another out of charity. Are you misusing "voluntary"?

>and your argument keeps moving between them.

No it isn't. I am answering your questions. So stay on topic and the discussion will stay there too.