You claimed there was no private business involved, and I already addressed that. You’ve now quoted the very text I used in rebuttal.
Once again: what you’re describing is social democracy, not socialism. Universal healthcare does not require socialism to exist.
Take countries like Canada, France, or even Cuba, which is a socialist country. Their universal healthcare systems rely on taxing businesses to fund them.
The private sector supplies the healthcare infrastructure, and the government subsidizes that care for the population.
I encourage you to look up what a subsidy is, how taxation works, and how economies function across different forms of government. You lack the fundamental understanding needed to have a meaningful discussion about these topics, let alone form an informed opinion.
So far, you have not acknowledged anything I’ve stated. You still do not understand what socialism is, you do not grasp its definition, and you do not understand what you are advocating for.
The begining of this whole conversation was me explaining how universal healthcare has nothing to do with socialism and I have explained to you multiple times how what you're describing is social democracy which is not socialism.
Can you tell me that you are acknowledging what I'm saying instead of asking nonsensical questions and avoiding my core statements like you're some kind fundamentalist evolution denier talking to an atheist calling show on YouTube?
You are reciting information that you yourself do not understand.
I am not limiting socialism to non-market systems you are that's what you said.
Scarcity in a for-profit healthcare system isn't handled it's what makes it profitable in the first place.
Sir or madam I implore you to stop this.
I will continue to respond to you because someone has to. Socialism does not work it is a detriment to human society I will fight against it at every turn especially from ignorant people such as yourself.
Unless of course you're bot which I just realized was very likely because what you're saying doesn't make any sense none of it does.
You're question is nonsensical and does not rebut any of my statements.
Socialism has nothing to do with value. The value of something is intrinsic to itself and has nothing to do with any kind of governmental system.
I have explained to you what socialism is in comparison to capitalism corporatocracy and social democracy and you still don't even understand what socialism is. Do you understand that you don't understand the definition of the word?
It appears you’re arguing from a fundamental misunderstanding of the system you’re defending. You’re describing expanded government programs inside a market economy. That is not socialism. That is social democracy.
Under actual socialism, the state owns the means of production. There is no private sector to tax. There is no flow of revenue from independent businesses because those businesses no longer exist as independent entities. Your points about taxation, profit collection, and philanthropy only make sense inside a mixed economy, precisely the system you claim to be replacing.
In other words, you’re defending a model that isn’t the one under discussion. You’re arguing for more public services, not socialism. These are completely different frameworks, and conflating them is why your reasoning keeps circling without connecting.
Socialism doesn't preclude the end of Private Business.
If the government controlled all private businesses where would they get money to operate? How woukd they collect taxes? How do you encourage innovation? philanthropy?
I wish you would have said that you were from France or Sweden or something it would have been a lot harder for me to find crap about your country because France and Sweden are better countries than America.
But you're from Canada...
Throw money at it that's absolutely beautiful Canada has some of the most predatory car loans probably in the world...
I grew up in Detroit so I've been to Canada a lot. You having anything bad to say about America is the most clinical definition of the pot calling the kettle black I have ever seen.
O and I'm sure you're country is a bastion of moral superiority. Considering how well your English is I suppose you're from western Europe? I'm sure I can dig up a whole bunch of shit on your country of origin.
Christ on a stick. Universal healthcare has nothing to do with socialism. Government programs that serve the public are part of the government’s core purpose in the first place.
It is remarkable how many people on this platform champion “socialism” when what they actually mean is social democracy. The difference is substantial.
Socialism does not work. It has never worked. No nation has prospered under socialism, and none will as long as scarcity remains.
You're referring to social democracy there are several social Democrats in office right now in the United States they are among the politicians I would vote for for president.
A lot of people mix up “socialism” with “people being good neighbors.” That’s not actually what the term means. Socialism is specifically about who owns the big stuff, the means of production. In a socialist setup, people still work jobs, they still get paid, and daily life still involves employment and compensation. The difference is that major industries aren’t privately owned by large corporations. They’re controlled collectively by the public or by the workers themselves.
Small private businesses can still exist; they’re not eliminated outright. What changes is the ownership of large-scale systems: energy, manufacturing, transportation, resources, things on that level. These are shifted away from private corporate control and toward collective control.
The fundamental issue of socialism and why it doesn't and has not worked historically is because of human nature. A corporateocracy or a capitalist based society aligns much better to human nature than socialism does which is why it's significantly more "successful".
YouTube music revanced. Best music outlet there is.