[flagged]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homeles...
Really depends on how each country is counting.
Since it has worked so well for the rich, you'd think socialism for all would get a better write up. But apparently poor americans getting universal healthcare is an unaffordable catastrophe and harbinger of the apocalypse.
There is no rational reason to assume universal healthcare is going to work here just because the bailouts did. Apples and oranges, really.
A lot of the fear of universal healthcare in the USA is because the voters think people like the progressives in charge of SF will run the program into the ground. I personally am not opposed to universal healthcare paid by the government, but I'm pretty skeptical our current political leaders would device a system that actually works better than what we have.
The much more obvious conclusion here is that socialism for the rich has insulated them from the consequences of their actions and has led to even worse behavior. Any reasonable person would conclude that socialism for the rich has been a catastrophic failure and should be done away with rather than expanded across society.
And welfare for the rich and for the poor are two very different things
The rich will still be just fine after their assets crash with or without welfare for the rich, although they may lose some power - all this socialism is about assets far above any reasonable survival line - it's all about disposable income and assets.
Socialism for all is ensuring everyone has basic needs to function in a modern society - food, housing, healthcare, education. Above that line of basic functioning and nondisposable income, it should be up to the individual.
It's the failed, self serving, and corrupt program of "Trickle Down Economics" that's been used by Republicans and Democrats since the Reagan era in one form or another. It brings in the donor classes and benefits the wealthy, all of whom happen to be our politicians. It was BS when it was sold to the American people then and it's BS now.
It's socialism, just as other forms of government. Nobles vs peasants. Is there a head of state that doesn't live in a palace?
The government is meant to promote opportunities for all, promoting the rich is not socialism. Not to mention that socialism originally meant social ownership, that's also not something people want. People just want opportunities.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of Americans who believe that not prosecuting people for stealing is part of socialism.