You misunderstood my point. Whether a system is "socialist" or "market" says nothing about whether a system is good or whether it is better than another. The on

You misunderstood my point. Whether a system is "socialist" or "market" says nothing about whether a system is good or whether it is better than another. The only way to measure whether a healthcare system is good is by looking at the outcomes of that system. The comparison to programming would be if people declared a program written in rust to be better than a similar program written in python simply because of the language. That makes no sense. It is certainly possible to produce programs written in rush that are worse than ones written in python. The point is that the measure of the quality of healthcare systems shouldn't be whether they are socialist or something it's looking at life expectancy, efficacy, cost, etc. Those are the things that actually matter. Hence "but they don't think that American health care is good" is missing the point. A common talking point in the US is that American healthcare is better because it's not socialist (or some essentially equivalent argument). It's total nonsense. An introspective American with a little humility might wonder "I've been led to believe my system is better because it is not socialist, but outcomes in other systems I consider socialist seem better". An introspective American might wonder if this belief "the solution is for the government to be less involved in healthcare, or at least make it more competitive" is truly worth holding given that so many supposedly less competitive systems have better results. Maybe in summary, think in terms of actionable information about systems and not nebulous undefined dogmas such as "socialist" or "market".