I think the confusion here is that you’re viewing these policies as causal to the initial decline.
Venezuela is a great example of a place that suffered an initial decline because of external forces. Had oil prices remained what they were and sanctions not come into play they would have continued making huge profits from their oil and been able to afford these programs. Poor management and waste only became an issue when it began a decline that would have happened anyway.
These examples only make sense as a reference point if you see the US (which is one of the worlds most insular economies) as likely to suffer from significant external shocks that massively change how it generates wealth.
Do you legitimately see failures of a socialized health system tied to a failing centrally planned economy the same as a cataclysmic and unalterable asteroid impact?
The argument is diverted because you ignored the context, introduced tangents and defended them with strawmen.
“why are you supporting centrally planned economies”
The centrally planned economies: “hi it’s me North Korea, you must be referring to me because I’m the only one on the planet right now”
I’m starting to interpret what you’re saying as an Ayn Rand inspired word salad. If you’re going to use technical language can you aim to be technically right too?
I’m directly addressing your post describing the success of socialized healthcare systems by defending the failures of those systems through blaming selective management of supply and demand side economics around macro economic deficiencies.
And somewhere in the mix we have asteroids impacting Ohio or Kentucky or something.
It doesn’t make sense to me either if I’m being honest but I’m trying make salad out of soup.
If I say that your point is analogous to something ridiculous (I.e. an asteroid impact), then I am calling your point ridiculous.
When you make macro level policy arguments the only thing you can’t ignore is macro context. All you have done here is ignore macro context.
For reference, I haven’t even stated my position on this issue, the only thing I have asked is for you to not make arguments that don’t work. It’s silly.
What you did in your first post was side step socialized healthcare failure by pinning blame on the economies they are tied to, which is the typical defense of a system that routinely fails its mission (and is inherently part of the tied economies) and completely avoids the problem of cost drivers to begin with.
Then you kept pushing tangents down rabbit holes by introducing more tangents and strawman arguments and you’re still doing it.
Socialized healthcare has failed nearly unanimously, with your example being the only exception so far, but if we take your own advice and compare apples to apples, managing a country with a population smaller than some US cities is a far cry from following your own advice.
More analogous examples to compare to the US would be the countries already discussed with more broadly diversified economies and populations. And socialized healthcare is a failure.
I don’t have to make intellectually dishonest snarky comments on repeat to force the statement either.
Mate, I left the my economics PhD in the UK to start my business in the US. There is no one more free market than me but I’m annoyed because you’re making an absolute hash out of a position that can be reasonably supported.
You’re repeatedly and wrongly mistaking failed programs in failed economies as causal and repeatedly making errors when you give examples. When you make silly arguments it results in people thinking that your position is silly, which is annoying because it’s my position.
Do you see where I’m coming from? I take issue with the fact that you’re emotionally and wrongly making arguments that make your (and my) position look stupid
Who should outraged people in the United Kingdom be assassinating when they don’t get the healthcare outcomes they wanted?
You claim that comparison isn’t valid and then go on to suggest that instead of examining reality in 2024 I ought to examine reality in 2005.
That seems rather silly, as the point of my thought exercise is to ask the people who are cheering this CEO’s death who they think deserves to die when bad healthcare outcomes happen in the UK.
Do bad healthcare outcomes exist in the UK, or does everyone get all of the care they require in a timely manner? Is there nothing for anyone to be upset about like many in the USA are with the insurance industry?
For the record, many similarities exist between Maine and the UK when it comes to social spending, including healthcare, and enticing troubled and needy people from across the globe with public resources. That’s how my local public high school went from under 1 percent Muslim to 50 percent Muslim in about 20 years while the town has gained zero net population. This outcome didn’t come about through mass religious conversion, it came about the same way it has in the UK.
When the people who live in a place don’t like your political ideas, use public resources to import people who do.
This idea of needing to travel back in time 20 years to examine healthcare in the UK today is, well, bizarre. It seems like the whole system is on a rather predictable trajectory that has been repeating itself for well over 100 years now every time people get the idea that we are owed goods and services from other people. It gets repackaged from class to race and now even sexuality, but it is the same basic ideas that keep producing the same result.
That result always has been and likely always will be shortages of all of the goods and services government promised to provide.
But yeah, it actually sucks when where you live just keeps getting worse in extremely depressing ways, especially when the election system is the envy of every warlord led breakaway people’s republic of the last 100 years.
What’s unfortunate is you’re using a PhD level of economic knowledge to set up strawman arguments explaining the success of socialized healthcare by illustrating the failure of socialized healthcare.
Socialized healthcare fails repeatedly. You don’t have a success story to point to so you resort to blaming everything but instead, while holding theory over observed results.
And this is the problem with politicized economics, especially when used to force support of failed policy. A lot of leaning on theory, because realization is impossible.
Meanwhile, healthcare is very expensive. Because of the cost drivers.
And you have continuously failed to provide any evidence to back this claim. You are either a moron or a liar. You’re definitely a coward if you are afraid of a simple question.