5 Reasons Why We Need Sweden's Democratic Socialism...

[Guest]

It is hard to know who the intended audience was for this filmmaker.

I would agree with this, actually. The information in the video was aimed at an audience opposed to socialist approaches but the content was not packaged to eliminate the fact the Swedes have a complex system that isn't purely one thing. Which is true of just about every system. It's why I thought most of it probably went over faqs' head if he watched it at all.

I thought it was decent as such videos go.

[_honorentheos]

The correct response would have been to explain what it means in a way that disproves the argument rather than just assert your brand loyalty.

What argument needs to be disproved? Democratic Socialism is a real thing. Really.

Sweden is democratic socialist was the original claim. Which is nonsense as that isn't a government type. As ideologies go, they have a party among whom is the current prime minister. But that's a parliamentary election away from possible change.

Either way, let's hear your description of what it means to be a social democrat since it's a thing with definable parameters and all

[_Chap]

Sweden has successfully implemented universal government funded healthcare that results in a healthier population at a much lower cost.

Average life expectancy, years (2019)

Sweden: 82.7
USA: 78.9

Expenditure on health care per head per year (2016), USD

Sweden: 5488
USA: 9892

So with the Swedish universal government funded healthcare, you get to live nearly four years longer on average than in the US, and you get to pay about 45% less in health care costs.

What's not to like? And could it be that the absence of a huge health insurance industry sucking money out of the system and driving up prices charged by hospitals might have something to do with why things are better and cheaper in Sweden? Is that remotely possible?

[...]
... the above seems very much to be the sort of garbage thinking that isn't helpful in addressing the issues with the US healthcare system. Rather, it suggests the person making a haphazard comparison.

Well, since the thread OP is about whether the Swedish social model is a pernicious system that should be avoided at all costs, and that Icarus had referred to the benefits of Swedish "universal government funded healthcare that results in a healthier population at a much lower cost", I can't see what was 'haphazard' about my making a direct comparison between healthcare costs and lifespan outcomes in Sweden and the US. In fact that seemed quite apposite.

And why the abusive response ('garbage thinking that isn't helpful') to my pointing to one huge difference between the two systems - the US insertion of a large profit driven business sector between the money input by the health care user, and the institutions that provide the health care? Is it so obvious that the extraction of profit from the system by that business sector (I mean, that's what a business is supposed to do, right?) has nothing to do with the higher cost and worse lifespan outcome?

[_Icarus]

It is hard to know who the intended audience was for this filmmaker.

I would agree with this, actually. The information in the video was aimed at an audience opposed to socialist approaches but the content was not packaged to eliminate the fact the Swedes have a complex system that isn't purely one thing. Which is true of just about every system. It's why I thought most of it probably went over faqs' head if he watched it at all.

I thought it was decent as such videos go.

And this is the entire point, I think, of speaking of Democratic Socialism. It isn't Socialism nor is it pure Capitalist. Democratic Socialism by its very definition is a mixed economy which means there are going to be nuances. The point I try to make to people who have been so conditioned to fear Socialism and to equate it with Communism, is that the United States is not a purely Capitalist country. We're very much a mixed economy same as many countries that we'd consider Democratic Socialist. We socialize healthcare for nearly half the country already. We socialized banking, transportation, armed forces, there are dozens of regulatory agencies that are designed to keep us safe, etc. No country is purely Capitalist or Free Market. The issue at hand is what degree we want to move to the left or right.

[_honorentheos]

Sweden has successfully implemented universal government funded healthcare that results in a healthier population at a much lower cost.

Average life expectancy, years (2019)

Sweden: 82.7
USA: 78.9

Expenditure on health care per head per year (2016), USD

Sweden: 5488
USA: 9892

So with the Swedish universal government funded healthcare, you get to live nearly four years longer on average than in the US, and you get to pay about 45% less in health care costs.

What's not to like? And could it be that the absence of a huge health insurance industry sucking money out of the system and driving up prices charged by hospitals might have something to do with why things are better and cheaper in Sweden? Is that remotely possible?

[...]
... the above seems very much to be the sort of garbage thinking that isn't helpful in addressing the issues with the US healthcare system. Rather, it suggests the person making a haphazard comparison.

Well, since the thread OP is about whether the Swedish social model is a pernicious system that should be avoided at all costs, and that Icarus had referred to the benefits of Swedish "universal government funded healthcare that results in a healthier population at a much lower cost", I can't see what was 'haphazard' about my making a direct comparison between healthcare costs and lifespan outcomes in Sweden and the US. In fact that seemed quite apposite.

And why the abusive response ('garbage thinking that isn't helpful') to my pointing to one huge difference between the two systems - the US insertion of a large profit driven business sector between the money input by the health care user, and the institutions that provide the health care? Is it so obvious that the extraction of profit from the system by that business sector (I mean, that's what a business is supposed to do, right?) has nothing to do with the higher cost and worse lifespan outcome?

It's pretty haphazard to point to the life expectancy outcomes and act like that encapsulates the argument.

The description of it as garbage was intended to convey it was garbage. If that's abusive, then don't toss your garbage over the fence and then be surprised when it's tossed back and called garbage.

[_honorentheos]

I would agree with this, actually. The information in the video was aimed at an audience opposed to socialist approaches but the content was not packaged to eliminate the fact the Swedes have a complex system that isn't purely one thing. Which is true of just about every system. It's why I thought most of it probably went over faqs' head if he watched it at all.

I thought it was decent as such videos go.

And this is the entire point, I think, of speaking of Democratic Socialism. It isn't Socialism nor is it pure Capitalist. Democratic Socialism by its very definition is a mixed economy which means there are going to be nuances. The point I try to make to people who have been so conditioned to fear Socialism and to equate it with Communism, is that the United States is not a purely Capitalist country. We're very much a mixed economy same as many countries that we'd consider Democratic Socialist. We socialize healthcare for nearly half the country already. We socialized banking, transportation, armed forces, there are dozens of regulatory agencies that are designed to keep us safe, etc. No country is purely Capitalist or Free Market. The issue at hand is what degree we want to move to the left or right.

I'm with you up to the end where you suggest the objective is to determine which ideological direction we ought to lean. in my opinion, ideological ideas are all well and good for brainstorming solutions and making arguments but I prefer they stay in the think tank camp. I prefer my politicians to be pragmatists with values that allow them to take on problems based in the facts of those problems rather than intending to pursue an ideological goal into which all problems get shoehorned.

ETA: but it still isn't illuminating the meaning of democratic socialism or what it means to be a social democrat that isn't above the level of branding. I'd prefer we get down to brass tacks regarding what different approaches propose to do, and let that do the speaking rather than the label fill in the gaps.

[_Chap]

It's pretty haphazard to point to the life expectancy outcomes and act like that encapsulates the argument.

So you don't think that life expectancy outcome is any kind of a broad indicator of the effectiveness of a health care system, in the context of a comparison between the US and another advanced western country on a discussion board?

Of course life expectancy alone (or any other single measure) cannot capture the full multi-dimensional reality of health care outcomes. See here for example if you want to chew things over in more detail:

https://ourworldindata.org/the-link-bet ... g-us-focus

... By the way, apart from underlining the point that the US spends more than anybody else per capita but gets a lower lifespan outcome, that article does point to the fact that "administrative costs in the health sector are higher in the US than in other countries", a factor which is unlikely to be irrelevant to the fact that money input by US health care users has to pass through a profit-making insurance business sector before it reaches health care providers.

[_honorentheos]

It's pretty haphazard to point to the life expectancy outcomes and act like that encapsulates the argument.

So you don't think that life expectancy outcome is any kind of a broad indicator of the effectiveness of a health care system, in the context of a comparison between the US and another advanced western country on a discussion board?

Of course I do. The issue is that it IS a broad indicator tossed out as what needs to be said on the subject on a discussion board.

It's haphazard. Let's add reckless to that, too.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

So you don't think that life expectancy outcome is any kind of a broad indicator of the effectiveness of a health care system, in the context of a comparison between the US and another advanced western country on a discussion board?

I agree in that it's one indicator, but let's not pretend lifestyle isn't another. If we were to compare and contrast a host of lifestyle data points between Sweden and the US I'm sure there'd be massive (no pun intended) discrepancies.

- Doc

[_Chap]

It's pretty haphazard to point to the life expectancy outcomes and act like that encapsulates the argument.

So you don't think that life expectancy outcome is any kind of a broad indicator of the effectiveness of a health care system, in the context of a comparison between the US and another advanced western country on a discussion board?

Of course I do. The issue is that it IS a broad indicator tossed out as what needs to be said on the subject on a discussion board.

It's haphazard. Let's add reckless to that, too.

At this point I think I shall simply say that I am happy for such readers as there are on this board to decide which one of us they think is being more reasonable.