Perhaps China is not included among the "developed world." — T Clark

China is a regional power. it's definitely a developed nation.

Anyway, the web says that 95% of Chinese are covered by subsidized healthcare. — T Clark

Not true. They would be if they stayed home in the country. They have moved en masse to the cities and lost benefits in the process.

In fact, this argument was the primary reason for post war embedded liberalism. — frank

You are probably right there. I think the idea was to introduce some form of state welfare in addition to higher wages, etc., in order to keep the masses happy and dissuade them from turning to communism. Apparently, the Russians were perceived as a huge threat at the time.

But I think in Europe it started long before the war, probably in the late 1800's and early 1900's.

think the idea was to introduce some form of state welfare in addition to higher wages, etc., in order to keep the masses happy and dissuade them from turning to communism. — Apollodorus

:up:

If you nationalize the health sector, more people can afford healthcare but quality takes a hit.

If you privatize the healthsector, quality is A1 but fewer people can afford it.
— TheMadFool

There is nothing intrinsically worse about the quality of socialized health care. There is nothing intrinsically better about the quality of privatized health care. — Bitter Crank

Then what's all the fuss about? I'm curious.

One thing's for sure: the American experience shows privatized healthcare is an utter failure that not only entrenches misery and poverty, but costs multiple times more than a public healthcare system. Those arguing the 'costs' angle against public healthcare are empirically wrong. — StreetlightX

So state funded healthcare because the US sucks.

I was looking for a principle. Don't leftists use those?

The neoliberal principle:

"Hayekian neoliberalism is a moral-political project that aims to protect traditional hierarchies by negating the very idea of the social and radically restricting the reach of democratic political power in nation-states.". --Wendy Brown

The idea is that morality and markets are the foundation of freedom and they spontaneously create order though traditions. A social democracy can't hope to intentionally create what M&M blindly plant in the world.

There is no such thing as society.

Then what's all the fuss about? I'm curious. — TheMadFool

well, lots of people believe that "private is better" "public is worse". The question isn't whether insured well informed care consumers can get good care in the US, or not. They can. The question is whether the good care they get can be provided for less money (it can) and more equitably (it can). But not within the private, for profit model.

What the US has is a continuum of care quality ranging between excellent and mediocre. Where on the continuum of quality one will end up depends first on money (do you have good insurance) and then on knowledge. One really should get the same quality of care without respect to money or how well can decode the system.

Will everybody get luxury grade care in a single payer, government operated system? It may well be that in the government operated hospital NOBODY gets luxury grade care (private room, order off special menu, private nurses, etc.). And really, why should one get such care? Expensive frills like that relate to the ability to pay, rather than medical benefit.

In the free enterprise system, whether you get care at all can depend on the ability to pay. No insurance? No surgery.

I'm assuming you do not actually believe that.

That's Neoliberalism. I understand it. I see how it took over the world.

Leftism seems pretty puny to me by comparison. Your argument for state funded healthcare was very persuasive, but do you see why it doesn't go up against Neoliberalism head to head? It's a case of fundamentally different priorities.

We also use evidence. Even wankers and tyrants have principles.

But as far as principles go, "whatever the US does, do the opposite" is not a bad one.

But as far as principles go, "whatever the US does, do the opposite" is not a bad one. — StreetlightX

Ressentiment?

Call it what you want.

Me, I'd call it a case study in massive failure of healthcare policy.

Me, I'd call it a case study in failure of healthcare policy. — StreetlightX

Ok. As an answer to Neoliberalism, there's not much content there.

Those are certainly words.

There is truth in Neoliberalism. That which grows naturally has grace and strength. Artificial societies are like Pakistan. Diverse crap shoved together.

Who champions the state and society? Not Marxism. Who?

Ah, preach brother Neolib, preach :cheer:

Edgelord Nietzsche wannabe lol

He who does not work, neither shall he eat is a New Testament aphorism traditionally attributed to Paul the Apostle, later cited by John Smith in the early 1600s colony of Jamestown, Virginia, and by the Communist revolutionary Vladimir Lenin during the early 1900s Russian Revolution.". -- Wikipedia in the quote from 1 Thessalonians — frank

This isn't a fair translation.

From the same Wiki article as your quote above, it is noted to say:

"If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.[1]
The Greek phrase οὐ θέλει ἐργᾰ́ζεσθαι (ou thélei ergázesthai) means "is not willing to work". Other English translations render this as "would"[2] or "will not work",[3] using the archaic sense of "want to, desire to" for the verb "will".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/He_who_does_not_work,_neither_shall_he_eat#:~:text=If%20anyone%20is%20not%20willing,for%20the%20verb%20%22will%22.

Not willing means to have the ability and to refuse, which means you must help the needy, but are not required to help those who can help themselves but just don't want to.

For a general discussion of the Christian NT ethic of assisting the poor:
https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-charity.html

The Old Testament commandments to give charity and assist the poor were just that, commandments, not recommendations.

well, lots of people believe that "private is better" "public is worse". The question isn't whether insured well informed care consumers can get good care in the US, or not. They can. The question is whether the good care they get can be provided for less money (it can) and more equitably (it can). But not within the private, for profit model.

What the US has is a continuum of care quality ranging between excellent and mediocre. Where on the continuum of quality one will end up depends first on money (do you have good insurance) and then on knowledge. One really should get the same quality of care without respect to money or how well can decode the system.

Will everybody get luxury grade care in a single payer, government operated system? It may well be that in the government operated hospital NOBODY gets luxury grade care (private room, order off special menu, private nurses, etc.). And really, why should one get such care? Expensive frills like that relate to the ability to pay, rather than medical benefit.

In the free enterprise system, whether you get care at all can depend on the ability to pay. No insurance? No surgery. — Bitter Crank

So, it all boils down to how much one's able to spend - graded service with costs pro rata are available for the ill. That's the classic format for private enterprise. There's money to be made of course - the rich will shell out the cash for services that match 5 star hotels they're so accustomed to - but the downside is the lower-income groups will be left out in the cold because they're no longer the demographic the privatized health sector caters to. One filthy rich person will be equivalent to, money-wise, probably 50 average Joes. You do the math.

Not willing means to have the ability and to refuse, which means you must help the needy, but are not required to help those who can help themselves but just don't want to. — Hanover

But they didn't mean the state should help the needy.

Who champions the state and society — frank

Stoicism does.

Bottom line is that any kind of leftism that discounts the importance of states is in agreement with Neoliberalism for all practical purposes.

To create a counter narrative you'd have to provide a genealogy of states that says they also form spontaneously as something essential to some cultural forms. Like the brain of a society, it organizes and protects.

Bottom line is that any kind of leftism that discounts the importance of states is in agreement with Neoliberalism for all practical purposes.

To create a counter narrative you'd have to provide a genealogy of states that says they also form spontaneously as something essential to some cultural forms. Like the brain of a society, it organizes and protects. — frank

These are also words. Well done.

These are also words. Well done. — StreetlightX

So you have no interest in this topic?

Oh I do it's just that what you wrote is senseless so I figured that you were practicing typing on a keyboard and was successful.

Uh huh.

Not true. They would be if they stayed home in the country. They have moved en masse to the cities and lost benefits in the process. — frank

I don't get it. What's your point?

don't get it. What's your point? — T Clark

If you read the thread, you'll find that several people gave really thought provoking answers to the question.

If you read the thread, you'll find that several people gave really thought provoking answers to the question. — frank

This is just a punt on your part. A baloney response because you have nothing relevant to say. I went back and reread the posts in this thread. There is nothing that deals with the state of health care in China and how it relates to health care in the US. Or did I miss it?

I worked today. I'm tired. Go to bed.

Artificial societies are like Pakistan. — frank

I don't think Pakistan is an artificial society. What happens today in Asia comes from all the mess the British empire did back in the day mixing all the tribes and ethnics each other. I guess they were forced to create a state because it was impossible to belong to India due to religion and cultural facts and issues. The Nobel prize winner Abdus Salam, explained so well what happened in their construction as a nation. He was born as a "British Indian" but his identity belonged to Punjabi Muslims. Thus, an ethnic which was important to the creation of Pakistan.
So, I guess UK was guilty here of mixing them all in an unique colony when they always were been so different from each other. Result? Civil wars due to territory issues and a big mess when UK left.