A Core Socialist policy vindicated by CV19

[Octavious]

The principle that government should provide universal public health services is a socialist one, the fact that it helps a capitalist based economy achieve greater national wealth/productivity is simply additional evidence of the merit of the principle.

It's compatible with Socialism, certainly, but also with capitalism. If it was a food you could liken it to a tomato. On the face of it it's clearly vegan, yet also fits well as a topping for a burger or served alongside a steak. Both vegans and sane people have good reason to appreciate the tomato, and so it should not be solely associated with any one side. The abomination that is tofu could more happily sit primarily in the vegansphere, whilst black pudding is clearly nowhere near it.

You might make an argument that free at the point of use health care would be more rapidly adopted by socialist systems, but that's about as far as you can go.

[orathaic]

I'm entirely with Octavious on this (and as a vegetarian almost vegan, I appreciate the analogy too).

A socialist system is one which theoretically abolishes all class differences - this has never been done, in Communist countries being part of the party acting like a class advantage, but that is an aside - you typically expect communal ownership of everything, but to really get rid of class you have to get rid of the advantages of wealth.

Russia did a fairly good job of this by rationing and strictly controlling the market. But it meant money was no longer useful as a medium of exchange. So factory workers would work overtime and sell extra goods on the black market (imagine a system where the workers worked the overtime in secret to get a bonus... That is one result, almost completely backwards from what you see in capitalist factories). And importantly gold was used as a medium of exchange, because when the national currency can't be used to buy the things people want (again due to rationing) then there is no point in selling your extra labour for that currency.

I'm taking that realistic example, because Star Trek type utopian ideals, while nice, don't really reflect human behaviour. In a country with socialist policies the aim is to precisely remove all class barriers. So wealth can not buy you health or happiness. This Russia did comparatively well, and you can see the result, wealth now just meant gold instead of Rubles, so the people found a way to accumulate wealth and advantage despite the state.

There is no such place as a socialist (ie class free) state. Just as there is no such thing as a libertarian state (which I see as the exact opposite, no public services, just private education, healthcare, policing and military, where wealth can buy you security, health, and knowledge).

There is a problem with assigning policies to ideologies which are so pure they will never exist in reality. It is the same problem as demonising your opponent. It reduces them to a simplification. And that betrays understanding of the nuance of reality.

Instead I like to say things like, "that is not the kind of country I'd like to live in" - for example when talking about US gun laws. You are free to hold a different opinion, it doesn't make you wrong or immoral. Health care is similar. Excepting that Americans believe in the insurance industry, providing collective risk sharing, while other countries do their collective risk sharing without insurance forms. It is fair to believe that the insurance industry can be more efficient at distributing health care than a government administration. I don't, and I think the evidence of health care spending vs outcomes is clear. But you are entitled to differ in opinion.

[flash2015]

The principle that government should provide universal public health services is a socialist one, the fact that it helps a capitalist based economy achieve greater national wealth/productivity is simply additional evidence of the merit of the principle.

It's compatible with Socialism, certainly, but also with capitalism. If it was a food you could liken it to a tomato. On the face of it it's clearly vegan, yet also fits well as a topping for a burger or served alongside a steak. Both vegans and sane people have good reason to appreciate the tomato, and so it should not be solely associated with any one side. The abomination that is tofu could more happily sit primarily in the vegansphere, whilst black pudding is clearly nowhere near it.

You might make an argument that free at the point of use health care would be more rapidly adopted by socialist systems, but that's about as far as you can go.

I have to come to the defense of tofu here. It is only an abomination if it used purely as a poor meat substitute. If it is used alongside meat (e.g. like in a Korean kimchi casserole with pork AND tofu) I don't believe there is anything wrong with it. Likewise, a medical system with public (i.e. universal healthcare) and private (i.e. willing to pay to get elective surgery NOW) components is probably better than only having one or the other.

[orathaic]

The principle that government should provide universal public health services is a socialist one, the fact that it helps a capitalist based economy achieve greater national wealth/productivity is simply additional evidence of the merit of the principle.

It's compatible with Socialism, certainly, but also with capitalism. If it was a food you could liken it to a tomato. On the face of it it's clearly vegan, yet also fits well as a topping for a burger or served alongside a steak. Both vegans and sane people have good reason to appreciate the tomato, and so it should not be solely associated with any one side. The abomination that is tofu could more happily sit primarily in the vegansphere, whilst black pudding is clearly nowhere near it.

You might make an argument that free at the point of use health care would be more rapidly adopted by socialist systems, but that's about as far as you can go.

I have to come to the defense of tofu here. It is only an abomination if it used purely as a poor meat substitute. If it is used alongside meat (e.g. like in a Korean kimchi casserole with pork AND tofu) I don't believe there is anything wrong with it. Likewise, a medical system with public (i.e. universal healthcare) and private (i.e. willing to pay to get elective surgery NOW) components is probably better than only having one or the other.

As someone who lives in a country (Ireland) where we have such a system, I have to disagree. Waiting list for public patients can be huge, while those who can afford private care skip the queue.

If there was no private system, the wealthy and powerful would be more likely to ensure the public system wasn't terrible... I think this breaks the incentives.

Elective procedures excepted.

[flash2015]

As someone who lives in a country (Ireland) where we have such a system, I have to disagree. Waiting list for public patients can be huge, while those who can afford private care skip the queue.

If there was no private system, the wealthy and powerful would be more likely to ensure the public system wasn't terrible... I think this breaks the incentives.

Elective procedures excepted.

I am not sure how you can avoid having a private system at some level. Say the government system will pay for wards, do you ban people paying extra for private rooms? Do you ban surgeries not authorized by the government as essential (e.g. cosmetic surgeries, lasic)?

A specific example - for dealing with cataracts perhaps the government will not pay for laser surgery and will only pay for fixed focus replacement lenses. Do you ban ophthalmologists from providing laser surgeries and advanced lenses just because the government won't pay for them?

And this is before we even talk about private hospitals and private insurance. I don't believe it works to ban them because rich people will just travel to other countries for these services...so by banning these private hospitals all you end up doing is subsidizing the medical system of another country.

[orathaic]

You can ban private hospital beds acting as a free-rider on the state sponsored health care system. Financial incentives should be enough. I don't know enough about how the system works in Ireland, but we have some mix of public/private hospitals, consultants who work some hours for the public and separate hours privately... It is a mess.

The best comparison I can think of is education, where public schools get subsidised and are required to live up to certain standards. Private schools being allowed to exist is fine, but they should be entirely funded by private means, rather than being able to claim a capitation fee from the state.

That is a pretty significant basis for equality of opportunity in a democratic society. Everyone should be able to access the same opportunities, and education provides them with the best basis for understanding what opportunities they have.

Still unfair that some children have access to expensive private education, but so long as their parents pay tax (to the public education) and then also pay the full cost of their private education, I don't mind this compromise as much.

[MajorMitchell]

Dear Octavious, my parents and their siblings were & the few remaining alive are of the same age as Captain ret Tom Moore, they were born in the 1920's or last half of the 1910-20 decade, so born between 1915 & 1929.
They may have been children during the Great Depression but it affected them all profoundly, I think even more than their experiences of WW2.
I have one surviving uncle and it's only in recent years that he has discussed his life long fear of poverty. Even though his parents & family were lucky to be relatively well off financially he's talked about what he observed, saw of far less fortunate persons, especially the impoverished circumstances of other children, and how that affected him, and still.does.
That's the bit that gets to me, despite a successful professional career and being moderately wealthy, he STILL has a fear of poverty, being ambushed by circumstances and ending up in poverty.
My father told me many stories of his experiences during the Great Depression, walking with his two brothers along railway lines looking for pieces of coal to collect to take home (they couldn't afford to buy coal or firewood) and the other things they did to survive.

So I would suggest it might be rash to assume that people who experienced the Great Depression and/or WW2 as children were not aware of what was going on, or that they were not profoundly affected by those events. Or that they did not make various conclusions from those experiences that strongly influenced lifelong behaviours, both as individuals and as collective communities and/or nations.

[MajorMitchell]

Clarification.. the uncle referred to is a brother of my mother. Their family was reasonably well off during the Great Depression. My father's family was not so fortunate, the experiences of my father and his brothers certainly lit a fire under their rear vestibules.. they were all bloody determined to never live in poverty.
These things have "ripple effects" to the following generation.. For example my father would get quite angry if I didn't eat everything on my dinner plate.. to waste good food was most wicked in his view.

Nowadays I observe my own nephew's use of Uber Eats and waste of food and shake my head in disapproval.

[Octavious]

With respect, Major, what's that got to do with the NHS? I spent much of my childhood living with my grandad, who was born in Liverpool in 1917 as one of 13 children living in a 2 up 2 down terrace. His father was a machine gunner with the Liverpool Scottish in the Great War, and spent the depression doing pretty much any kind of work he could get his hands on, from butcher to ice cream maker.

In this time the attitude to food my grandad picked up was if you don't want it, don't eat it. Presumably this was a reaction to eating loads of miserable food in the depression followed by military rations in the war, and a "I'm not going to eat that muck when I don't have to" attitude.

People are indeed greatly impacted by their experiences, but how they are impacted can vary wildly between people.

[MajorMitchell]

The relevance is this, in my opinion; the creation of the NHS is the work of those who had experienced life without such a public health service. I believe the Beveridge Report recommended the establishment of a public health services system, but in my opinion it was widespread community support reflected in the election that chose to elect a government that would "make it happen" (& not a continuation of Churchill's conservative government) that demonstrates that those who had experienced life without a NHS overwhelmingly chose to support the creation of the NHS.

I believe that the British public decided that they wanted a much different post war experience after WW2 than what they experienced after WW1. The post WW1 experience was "still fresh in people's minds" in the UK in 1946 & they were bloody determined to create a different post war environment. We can criticise the UN but it's a clear indication that people wanted something much better than the post WW1 League of Nations.
Does failure to achieve an ideal mean that we give up on trying to achieve it?

[Octavious]

A couple of issues with that.

Firstly it would have been impossible for the country to vote for a continuation of the Conservative government as there wasn't a Conservative government to continue. The UK had a government of national unity un the war made up of all significant parties. This was followed briefly by a caretaker government from the end of the war to the election, which was a smaller coalition government.

The Conservatives were still carrying a lot of baggage from pre war appeasement policies and the handling of the great depression. And whilst Churchill was quite popular amongst the civilian population, the majority view of the military was that he was a prat.

[taylor4]

It may be pointed out that many if not most hospitals suffered bomb damage in World War II, & the Labour government found it thus expedient to implement the NHS.

[Jamiet99uk]

It may be pointed out that many if not most hospitals suffered bomb damage in World War II, & the Labour government found it thus expedient to implement the NHS.

What?

If you're trying to make a point, I don't know what it is.

[MajorMitchell]

I don't want to offend you taylor4, but I regard you comment as a triviality. I would emphasise my status as "definitely not an omniscient expert" but counter with an opinion at a "bigger picture level" of the post WW2 policies in the UK that I think should be seen as implementation of socialist principles.
Taking the observation about war damaged property/infrastructure and reconstruction and using domestic housing as an example. I'd suggest that as well as a private sector building boom there was also a determination to invest public monies to lift the standard of housing available to "the ordinary citizen", it's affordability & engage in slum tenement clearance, increase the proportion of houses with better sewerage, plumbed drinking/washing water, electrical power & a telephone.
They didn't use what I would describe as Margaret​ Thatcher like policies maximum private sector with minimal supervision, regulation and involvement of government in the housing reconstruction. Because there was a strong collective will to do it in different ways, in ways that I suggest adapted socialist principles to suit their perceived need to ensure a much better post war society than what they had experienced after WW1.
I'm suggesting that the NHS is an outstanding example of that collective determination.
I'm also a bit dismissive of the argument that imperfections, failures within universal public health services provide good reason to abandon the implementation of universal public health services within a nation.
Instead they are simply reasons why greater intellectual resources in particular should be invested in solving the imperfections, problems and failures encountered.

I accept that the combination model in health and education services can work exceptionally well, but it also has weaknesses.

For example in education the elite private schools can be most effective at securing a much higher level of public funding per student than the public funding to public education services because the users of elite private schools have greater political and economic influence than the average users of public education services. (I define users as the families of students)
So I'm not averse to having elite private schools as well as well run, well resourced public education services. But I'm not a fan of what I regard as corruptions that involve taxpayer's money. Yes elite private schools are in my opinion entitled to receive taxpayer funded support, but not more than what is provided per student to the public education services by taxpayers. They are in my opinion entitled to an equivalent amount of taxpayer's money per student.

[orathaic]

Problems are inevitable, problems are soluble.

Any system, whether driven by pure ideology or some kind of realistic compromise, will have problems, maybe some free riders, maybe some will not be engaged by middle class teachers with aspiration which fail to inspire working class kids... Maybe your system isn't perfect, but no system ever can be. Especially when taken to ideological extremes. Seeing the flaws and attempting to remedy them is vital for a healthy democracy (whereas in more authoritarian systems, power can be demonstrated by suppressing the criticism, and thus proving that the authority is in power, rather than actually governing in the interest of the people - which is the kind of flaw you see in authoritarian systems... Trump uses distraction, belittling of journalists, and a 'fake news' strategy to suppress criticism, which is at least better than shooting journalists in the head or dissappearing their families like some regimes do...).

[Randomizer]

Trump uses distraction, belittling of journalists, and a 'fake news' strategy to suppress criticism, which is at least better than shooting journalists in the head or dissappearing their families like some regimes do...).

While Trump hasn't done that personally, he has told his followers to physically attack opponents at campaign rallies, "joking" offered pardons to government agents that break the law on his behalf, and threaten opponents lives and jobs. He has removed people that questioned his actions or disagreed with him and mentioned charging them with up to treason.

By the Republican Senate not removing Trump when impeached it has only made him worse with disregarding the Constitution.

[MajorMitchell]

Orathaic is correct in my opinion in asserting that there are dictators (& I might suggest oligarchs of dubious reputation) who act in criminal ways far worse than Trump.
Randomiser's response has in my opinion offered examples of a pattern of behaviour by Trump that are harmful to the democratic processes and institutions in the USA. Additionally Trump publicly describes/portrays restraints that prevent him from acting in unlawful ways to greater extent in negative critical or mocking ways (he has long insisted that as POTUS his duties to defend & protect the national interests and safety of the USA make him exempt from many legal restraints already).

I think it's likely that Trump is often frustrated that he can't act with the powers that dictators like Putin or the North Korean dictator or Ji Xinpeng and that Trump wouldn't be restrained by his morality or ethical code in acting just as corruptly as any of them if he thought it necessary.