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.
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.
The action can come if the goal is possible.
The agency doesn’t have to suddenly branch out but the growth can be limited to the capacity of the agency.
Could such an agency be possible?