The person in the video didn't say the government is providing health insurance. He said the government is regulating affordability and accessibility.
Question: do socialist governments regulate affordability?
Capitalist governments do, too. Regulation is not exclusive to socialism, nor did the ACA create the practice of regulation. Many industries are regulate by law in the US.
AI Overview
Yes, a primary characteristic and goal of socialist governments is to regulate affordability for citizens, particularly concerning basic needs like housing, healthcare, and food. This is typically achieved through mechanisms such as:
Price Controls: In purely socialist economies, governments set prices for goods and services, rather than allowing market forces (supply and demand) to determine them. The goal is to ensure universal access and prevent excessive costs.
The ACA does not set prices. Sure, it regulates them in certain ways, but the law does require private insurers to charge a set amount for health insurance. And, again, regulations exist in other industries as well, so the ACA did not create them.
Central Planning and State Ownership: The government owns or controls the means of production and distribution, allowing it to direct resources to meet societal needs rather than profit motives. For example, in housing, central planning ensures continuous construction to meet demand and maintain affordability, often resulting in high homeownership rates and low homelessness.
Under the ACA, the government does not own the health insurance industry. Health insurance is provided through private companies.
Subsidies and Social Welfare Programs: Socialist systems often provide essential goods and services, such as education, healthcare, and sometimes housing and food, at no cost or highly subsidized rates to citizens. These are considered basic rights rather than commodities.
Yes, the government does subsidize health insurance for certain people who get their health insurance through the ACA marketplace. But only in those cases.
Plus which, the US government subsidizes many other industries as well, through direct subsidies and tax breaks, including agriculture, transportation and energy. In fact, the US government provides subsidies to exceptionally profitable industries like the fossil fuel industry, a whopping 34 billion per year.
Elimination of Profit Motive: By removing or severely limiting the profit motive in key sectors, the government aims to reduce costs that would otherwise go to investors or landlords. For instance, the rental sector might be transformed into socially owned homes to remove the "cash nexus" from housing.
The ACA does not remove the ability for
private health insurers to make a profit. In fact, in 2023, the for-profit health insurance industry generated $25 billion in profit industry-wide. Though, to be fair, in 2024 those profits did decrease to only $9 billion.
The profit motive has not been eliminated.
Guaranteed Employment/Income: By ensuring employment and establishing wage policies, socialist systems aim to provide a safety net that guarantees citizens have the financial means to meet their basic needs.
Nothing here pertains to the ACA.
In mixed economies with socialist elements, the government may implement policies like rent control, minimum wage laws, or subsidized public options for certain services to improve affordability and reduce economic inequality.
Yes, the US does have some elements derived from socialist ideals: medicare/medicaid among them, but these predate the ACA.
So, other than that the ACA provides subsidies for those with health insurance provided through private insurers purchased through the marketplace, there is no element of socialism in the ACA. Which really shouldn't be surprising, considering the Heritage Foundation came up with the idea in the first place.
-- A2SG, that the best you got?