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?
Socialist systems are divided into non-market and market forms.[15][16] A non-market socialist system seeks to eliminate the perceived inefficiencies, irrationalities, unpredictability, and crises that socialists traditionally associate with capital accumulation and the profit system.[17] Market socialism retains the use of monetary prices, factor markets and sometimes the profit motive.
I understand that you limit socialism to non-market socialism.
Socialism does not work. It has never worked. No nation has prospered under socialism, and none will as long as scarcity remains.
Without markets, scarcity is indeed much more difficult to handle. But there is also scarcity in a single payer healthcare system. If it can be handled there, why does it not scale to the entire economy?
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.
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?
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.
That’s your explanation. I quoted Wikipedia showing that there can be a flow of revenue. So why can’t socialism work like single payer healthcare?
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.
I hope that I have figured out how to explain my idea.
Universal healthcare does not require socialism to exist.
However it could be the nucleus for socialism.
Let’s start from a working universal healthcare system. Whatever government agency organizes it, with unlimited funding, they could start owning hospitals and employ doctors and nurses. Then they could own medical companies and the entire medical sector.
If that is extended to food, housing and everything else, it would end up as the state running a socialist country because the state owns everything.
A socialist revolution could substitute the need for unlimited funding.
Honestly, the chain-reaction idea just doesn’t hold up. A healthcare agency, even a universal one, isn’t a command hub for the rest of the economy. Its authority ends at healthcare. Funding something doesn’t mean owning it, and there’s no mechanism that lets a medical bureaucracy suddenly branch out into housing, farming, manufacturing, or anything else.
If the state wanted to own those sectors, it would have to pass explicit nationalization laws. That requires political will, not some automatic drift caused by covering everyone’s doctor visits. We’ve had universal care in plenty of countries for decades, and none of them spontaneously rolled into full state socialism because the health service existed.
And the “unlimited funding” premise doesn’t map to how governments work. Budgets are capped, audited, and fought over. You can’t build a whole-economic takeover on a resource stream that doesn’t actually exist.
So the short version: universal healthcare doesn’t function as a nucleus for socialism. It’s a public service. To move beyond that, you need intentional, large scale political action not administrative gravity.
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?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
I understand that you limit socialism to non-market socialism.
Without markets, scarcity is indeed much more difficult to handle. But there is also scarcity in a single payer healthcare system. If it can be handled there, why does it not scale to the entire economy?
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.
What’s your argument against it working if single payer healthcare works?
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?
That’s your explanation. I quoted Wikipedia showing that there can be a flow of revenue. So why can’t socialism work like single payer healthcare?
That was in response to your statement.
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.
I hope that I have figured out how to explain my idea.
However it could be the nucleus for socialism.
Let’s start from a working universal healthcare system. Whatever government agency organizes it, with unlimited funding, they could start owning hospitals and employ doctors and nurses. Then they could own medical companies and the entire medical sector.
If that is extended to food, housing and everything else, it would end up as the state running a socialist country because the state owns everything.
A socialist revolution could substitute the need for unlimited funding.
Why does that not work?
Honestly, the chain-reaction idea just doesn’t hold up. A healthcare agency, even a universal one, isn’t a command hub for the rest of the economy. Its authority ends at healthcare. Funding something doesn’t mean owning it, and there’s no mechanism that lets a medical bureaucracy suddenly branch out into housing, farming, manufacturing, or anything else.
If the state wanted to own those sectors, it would have to pass explicit nationalization laws. That requires political will, not some automatic drift caused by covering everyone’s doctor visits. We’ve had universal care in plenty of countries for decades, and none of them spontaneously rolled into full state socialism because the health service existed.
And the “unlimited funding” premise doesn’t map to how governments work. Budgets are capped, audited, and fought over. You can’t build a whole-economic takeover on a resource stream that doesn’t actually exist.
So the short version: universal healthcare doesn’t function as a nucleus for socialism. It’s a public service. To move beyond that, you need intentional, large scale political action not administrative gravity.