[quetzalcoatl]

Which is why it is in debt! Duh! But how sustainable is that? At some point constant losing leads to dissolution.

Governments are not businesses. They are not required to make a profit. Governments exist solely to facilitate access of the citizens to the commons: roads, clean water, etc. What is included under the rubric of the commons is a political decision made by the voters. This is not a socialist concept at all btw.

[Unthinking Majority]

Universal healthcare may be considered Socialism by some people who are uneducated, or ignorant, but unlike the USA system, it's not for-profit.

America's healthcare is mostly for-profit, and as such, isn't there to cater to the patient, but to the industry.

Universal healthcare (ie: single payer) is socialism. That doesn't mean its bad.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Universal healthcare (ie: single payer) is socialism.

Actually its not, the proletariat controlling the means of production via the mechanism of the state is socialism; universal health care is welfare.

Actual socialists have real problems with welfare, after all, welfarism prevents class-consciousness from forming among the working classes as such would under a state of oppression from the dictatorship of the bourgeois.

[Godstud]

[Victoribus Spolia]

Apparently you find the accurate use of definitions amusing.

You'd be a cheap date. Just take you to a cafe and pay someone a quarter to read from a dictionary.

I bet you'd put out after the first time out too.

[Drlee]

... universal health care is welfare.

So wait. Is everything that the government pays for and (all) the people at large benefit from welfare?



So that would make representational government itself welfare.

[Godstud]

@Victoribus Spolia You saying Universal Healthcare was Welfare was what was funny, and also colossally stupid.

[Victoribus Spolia]

So wait. Is everything that the government pays for and (all) the people at large benefit from welfare?

from google's dictionary:

wel·fare state
/ˈwelfe(ə)r ˌstāt/
noun
noun: welfare state; plural noun: welfare states

a system whereby the government undertakes to protect the health and well-being of its citizens, especially those in financial or social need, by means of grants, pensions, and other benefits. The foundations for the modern welfare state in the US were laid by the New Deal programs of President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

a country practicing a welfare state system.

Typically, the implementation of a progressive income tax to fund assistance programs such for food, medical assistance, shelter etc. distinguish welfarism from classical liberalism and socialism; the latter requiring (by definition) the non-existence of private property and the private control of the means of production; all of which still exist under welfare states (thus why they cannot be socialist).

Classical liberalism, in contrast to welfarism would argue that the role of government is only to protect private contracts for those within the social contract via a means of adjudication and defense. Hence, government is obligated to arbitrate contracts (enforce law) and protect its citizens from exterior violence (provide for a military of some sorts).

Representational government would be regarded as merely the mechanism of this social contract, not something "provided" by it.

I of course oppose all said systems.

@Godstud,

From the guy who said that the Scandinavian countries were socialist.....Yeah, you are are hardly a judge of what is or is not "colossal stupidity," as you seem incompetent to even comprehend the most basic of definitions regarding political theory.

[Godstud]

Democratic Socialism. I guess reading is hard for you, right?

[Victoribus Spolia]

@Godstud

Its not hard, the definition you gave for socialism in this thread said that state controls the means of production. This is not true of the Scandinavian countries, the government does not control the means of production there, so THEY ARE NOT SOCIALIST.

Having a few "democratic socialist" parties doesn't make your country socialist, even having such as the party with the most political positions doesn't make your country socialist. The only thing that can make your country socialist is if the state CONTROLS THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION.

How is this fucking difficult for you @Godstud?

Its REALLY simple. Is there private property in Denmark? Does Denmark's state own the means of production?

The answer is the same for both of these questions: NO.

So is Denmark socialist?

NO.

Does Denmark have universal healthcare?

Yes.

So is universal healthcare proof of a socialist state?

NO.

_____________________________________________________________________

Further, democratic socialism is not consistent with socialism anyway; after all, socialists don't want "everyone to share the means of production." they want the workers to control the means of production, so if rich people are barred from controlling the means of production, then how could socialism allow them to participate in the democratic control of the means of production?

They can't.

Which is why socialism is not ultimately democratic, it advocates for the tyranny of the proletariat AGAINST the tyranny of the bourgeoisie; whatever voting rights will ultimately be had in a real socialist country being reserved for the workers alone, all else will conform or be gulaged.

Like I said to you before, if Thailand became truly socialist, you would be one of the first as a rich white capitalist foreigner to be made to work in a rice paddy in the bush at gunpoint, exiled back to your colonial lands of origin, or shot by a firing squad....after confiscating your property and recently purchased rubber plantation of course.

[Pants-of-dog]

Who cares how it is defined?

If you want to call it welfare, then all,government services are welfare, including the military.

It does not make it any less effective.

[Victoribus Spolia]

If you want to call it welfare, then all,government services are welfare, including the military.

The military is not included under the standard dictionary definitions of welfare, only that which can be considered aid for a specific invididual's well-being and benefit; e.g; medical assistance, food, shelter, etc.

Hence, you are incorrect given the definitions.

Who cares how it is defined?

Definitions matter in debate as to prevent ambiguity, equivocation, and misinformation.

Given such as the case, I can see why you wouldn't like them.

[Pants-of-dog]

The military is not included under the standard dictionary definitions of welfare, only that which can be considered aid for a specific invididual's well-being and benefit; e.g; medical assistance, food, shelter, etc.

Hence, you are incorrect given the definitions.

Definitions matter in debate as to prevent ambiguity, equivocation, and misinformation.

Given such as the case, I can see why you wouldn't like them.

Sure, whatever.

I notice you did not disagree when I pointed out that your children currently benefit from universal health care programs.

I am glad that “welfare” exists and that your kids benefit.

[Victoribus Spolia]

I am glad that “welfare” exists and that your kids benefit.

I'm glad that you are glad.

I notice you did not disagree

Thanks for noticing that I ignored much of what you've had to say on this thread.

Very perceptive of you.

Sure, whatever.

Glad we agree.

[Pants-of-dog]

I'm glad that you are glad.

Thanks for noticing that I ignored much of what you've had to say on this thread.

Very perceptive of you.

Glad we agree.

Sure, anyways...

How would health care work in an ancap society?

Would you have to pay millions to see a faith healer?

[Drlee]

The military is not included under the standard dictionary definitions of welfare, only that which can be considered aid for a specific invididual's well-being and benefit; e.g; medical assistance, food, shelter, etc. [/quotOdd you should mention the military. IT is, in many ways, the ultimate socialist organization.

Its production (if you wish to call it that) is solely owned by the government. It is entirely an organ of the state. Its members are provided, free of charge, everything necessary for survival from food to medical care to entertainment at government expense. In other words members of the military all exactly match your definition above.

[SolarCross]

Its production (if you wish to call it that) is solely owned by the government. It is entirely an organ of the state. Its members are provided, free of charge, everything necessary for survival from food to medical care to entertainment at government expense. In other words members of the military all exactly match your definition above.

There are a fair number of different ways of organising a military and that is only one though in our times a common one. In pre-modern times a common model was for soldiers to supply their pay and equipment from their own resources, the service itself was the tax, looting and ransoms were how one a won a bonus. Another common one was just to hire mercenaries as and when required.

[Atlantis]

I'm speechless. I honestly don't know what to say. This can't be true. The US is going to force the Brits (and others) to pay more for drugs? Was that the deal the Brexitters had in mind?

It was the Americans themselves who decided to replace democracy by a dysfunctional plutocracy. Why is that the fault of non-Americans? Do we all have to adopt a US-style plutocracy because that's what the Americans want for themselves?

Trump threatens to use US trade talks to force NHS to pay more for drugs

Donald Trump is ready to use trade talks to force the National Health Service to pay more for its drugs as part of his scheme to "put American patients first”.

Mr Trump has claimed that the high costs faced by US patients are a direct result of other countries’ health services “freeloading” at America’s expense.

Alex Azar, the US Health and Human Services Secretary, has said Washington will use its muscle to push up drug prices abroad, to lower the cost paid by patients in the United States.

"On the foreign side, we need to, through our trade negotiations and agreements, pressure them," Azar said on CNBC.

"And so we pay less, they pay more. It shouldn't be a one-way ratchet. We all have some skin in this game."

He continued: "The reason why they are getting better net prices than we get is their socialised system."

In the UK, prices are dictated in part by National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) which has been successful in securing discounts for some of the costliest drugs.

Single-payer government-run health services like the NHS are able to use their negotiating muscle to pay far lower prices than their fragmented insurance-based private American counterparts, to the fury of the US president.

“America will not be cheated any longer, and especially will not be cheated by foreign countries,” Mr Trump said.

“In some cases, medicine that costs a few dollars in a foreign country costs hundreds of dollars in America for the same pill, with the same ingredients, in the same package, made in the same plant. That is unacceptable.

“It's unfair. It's ridiculous. It's not going to happen any longer. It's time to end the global freeloading once and for all.”

The pharmaceutical companies in the US are among the biggest corporate political donors and Democrats accused the US president of looking after the industry rather than patients.

Lowering drug prices was one of Donald Trump's key campaign promises and he hopes to achieve this by making other countries pay more.

"I think this applies to all advanced countries, including the UK," said Paul Ginsburg, professor of health policy at the University of Southern California.

“This effort to change other nations' health policies will be driven by the US Trade Representative Bob Lighthizer when he is negotiating deals to avoid application of US tariffs or, in the case of the UK, a bilateral trade deal post-Brexit,” said Brandon Barford, a partner at Washington-based Beacon Policy Advisors.

“The second goal is that, for the UK in particular, trade negotiations will likely occur in the run-up to the US Presidential election in November 2020.

“The President and his team want to be able to use the NHS and NICE as a foil for his plan that reduces costs for consumers at the point of sale, but without rationing and access restrictions for which the UK system is infamous in the US, particularly amongst conservative media.”

Britain’s lower drug prices date back to an agreement reached between the industry and the NHS in 1957, which was designed to “achieve a financial balance in the interests of patients, the National Health Service, taxpayers, and the pharmaceutical industry."

While prices in the UK are controlled, in the US they are left to the market and the differences can be dramatic.

For example, Americans paid an average of £1,964 ($2,669) for Humira, an injectable drug used to treat an array of autoimmune diseases including ulcerative colitis. The cost for a British patient is £1,003 ($1,362).

According to the latest figures the NHS spent £15.4 billion on medicines in 2016-17; only salaries cost the health service more.

In the UK there was some debate over whether the US could impose higher drug prices on the UK.

“How much the UK spends on healthcare and on medicines is a matter for the UK government and it is not clear to us how the US or any other government would influence this,” said Richard Torbett of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry.

“The way medicines' prices are set in the UK is governed by a voluntary agreement called the Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme, which is negotiated between the global industry and the UK government.”

Nigel Edwards, chief executive of the Nuffield Trust, an independent health think tank, disputed that British patients were freeloading at the expense of their American counterparts.

“There is no reason to suppose that more expensive prices for drugs in Europe would translate into cheaper prices in the US.

“USA healthcare prices are generally higher than in Europe and the absence of the sort of large-scale negotiation by the US government does not help.

“This is more likely to be the cause of high drugs pricing, rather than one side of the Atlantic subsidising the other. "

[Stormsmith]

Relax. Lots of countries manufacture drugs. If the US prices themselves out of the market, well, c'est la vie

[Hindsite]

Relax. Lots of countries manufacture drugs. If the US prices themselves out of the market, well, c'est la vie

Absolutely, it is called the free market.
HalleluYah