You can have a universal healthcare system run in a socialist manner because both supply and demand are really warped when there's patents and people's lives on the line.
no socialist scholar ever said socialism is when the government gives people healthcare, this just happens to be something socialists want, but it in and of itself is not socialism, and not everything socialists want is socialism. Socialism is when the workers own the means of production, nothing else.
And you can mix and match, having sectors partially solcialist and partially capitalist (subsidized industries, government procurement from private industry, regulations, etc.).
these also are examples that have nothing to do with anything any socialist philosopher ever said. You have listened to capitalist propaganda that says socialism is all these things, try listening to marx or bakunin or kropotkin or any other major socialist thinker as to the definition of socialism.
Capitalism like any tool needs maintenance (so does socialism) but there's precedent for trust-busting and Keynesian economic policy.
also still capitalist.
The problem is everyone wants some silver bullet solution so they can vote once and all problems are solved forever. That's an immature understanding of economics. It's a whole field of study, economics is a complex area of study, and both the MAGAs and the leftists refuse to to even try to understand it.
this is a strawman because you don't even know what leftists believe, you have obviously not read the works of many if you don't even know the definition of socialism... but for some reason you boldly assume you do because you read it on the news or perhaps got this information from a middleschool teacher.
It's like watching children argue over CPU architecture just screaming things at each other over something they have no understanding of while the wealthy laugh at both groups.
i can see how that would be if your strawman were true.
If you wish to debunk all of my claims name any major socialist thinker who agrees with your definition. Not social democrat, socialist.
Nah