NYC primary 2025

I was interested when it was new. It's not turned out to be so interesting after all.

It doesn't "think" anything is the problem you're running into dealing with it

 

Sure . . . It doesn't think, but it does search for something to recognize and fails to find it, if only because my question implied that Mamdani believes a lack of profit motive will still result in adequate production. Artie apparently inferred that Mamdani is somehow linked to "well-known economic theory regarding minimal profit incentives" . . . that well-known theory (zero profit, of course) being implied by Karl Marx.

What it Did do was point out the flawed belief that Mamdani holds, in fact all socialists hold, which is that society will fair just fine in an environment where production is not incentivized by profit.

 

It said the opposite, but I'm not super interested in debating how a curve fitting algorithm guesses its next word.

 

Fine . . . interested in debating whether socialism can stand on its own two feet?

 

Only if you're willing to make clear definitions. It can't be just "anything I don't like is socialism" as conservatives oft fall back on. Furthermore, it would require an openness to a mixed system. For example, many governments around the world have better health systems than the U.S., and are deeply capitalistic on the whole. So there needs to be the ability to say "capitalism can't solve this particular problem as well" without blanket condemnation of ideas that are proven to work for the average person.

I think a mixed system is quite ideal. There's definitely some problems better solved by capitalistic ideas than socialist ones. Why couldn't the converse be true?

 

I’ve made it clear before that I believe in helping those that cannot help themselves, and that I do not believe in helping those who are able and will not help themselves. Therefore, any solution rooted in socialist practice cannot be an across-the-board solution, but must be targeted only at the truly needy.

As long as you believe the same I think we can have productive discourse.

 

In general I can agree, but there's some areas like health insurance that are an abject failure. It's unethical to have an industry where there's profit squeezed out of finding creative ways to deny care. Thus, there are some examples that should be more "across the board" solutions.

 

Oh? . . . Just like there are ways to work within a budget by delaying treatment until it's no longer needed, or by delaying payment to healthcare professionals until they decline patients having that slow-paying coverage?

By the way, there are NO universally-praised universal health care systems on the face of the Earth, regardless of what your teachers pumped into you:

France - Deteriorating quality, staffing shortages (doctors, nurses), long waits (ERs, specialists), budget deficits, and complex reimbursement/access issues. Patients face challenges like finding a local GP, getting timely specialist appointments, managing out-of-pocket costs for non-covered services (dental, vision), and navigating bureaucracy, leading to significant public dissatisfaction and a perceived "crisis".

Canada - Long wait times for specialists and surgeries, significant shortages of family doctors, and underfunding leading to overburdened hospitals and ERs. Other issues include lack of access to mental health/dental/pharma (not fully covered), concerns about governance/accountability, and inefficiencies, with many Canadians feeling the system's quality is declining despite high taxes, ranking poorly in timely access compared to other nations.

Japan - Inefficient primary care structure with little coordination, leading to overutilization (frequent, short visits) and overburdened hospitals, a lack of doctor-patient communication (impersonal care, poor explanations), physician overspecialization without proper training, and understaffing for certain roles (doctors per bed), alongside issues for foreigners with language barriers and access to information, all while facing long-term financial strains despite universal coverage.

Sweden - Long wait times, staff shortages (especially nurses), underfunding, regional inequalities, and issues with access and continuity of care, leading to patients feeling depersonalized or not taken seriously, despite good objective outcomes; there are also concerns about hospital overcrowding and inappropriate patient care decisions.

The list goes on . . . the art of delaying / denying coverage is not the province of private insurers alone.

 

Nothing is perfect, but it's not controversial to say people in all those countries are far more satisfied with their healthcare systems than Americans are with theirs.

 

Oh, I don't dispute that. Americans have extremely high expectations . . . It seems like all Americans these days think they deserve a dog, a white picket fence, and a house behind it, 2-1/2 kids, free day care, free health care and paid maternity leave for both parents . . . oh, and no stress.

Edit . . . in retrospect, I left an awful lot out, but I'm sure you catch my drift .