When everybody in this thread are advocating for socialism, are using the word in the European sense, socialism as in social-democracy [1], as have many leading European parties in their names [2][3]. Its tenets are as many as there are people using the word, but usually involve a strong safety net with a publicly owned healthcare system, strong redistribution by taxing the rich and companies, and generally having corporations on short leash. For a successful implementation, see the Nordic countries.
In the US, the word socialism is used as a synonym for communism, that is the word that would be used in Europe for the kind of government that ran all those countries you mentioned, is responsible of all those awful things and shares nothing with socialism but a far historical background, lost in the mists of the late XIX century.
In real life (in Europe), it would be hard to find anybody that goes by socialist or votes a socialist party that would advocate for anything remotely similar to a full fledged Communism.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Democratic_Party_of_Ger... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Party_(France)
I can see that lots of Americans refuse to acknowledge the difference between different kinds of political systems, or look at Europe as it actually is. It's disappointing that even on HN people can't see past their prejudices.
I can't figure out "Europe as it actually is." I have concluded that peasants like to be ruled and cradle to grave socialism is what people clearly prefer despite the negative effects it has on real personal freedom.
The world is full of countries with more equally distributed healthcare systems than the US with better public/private balance. The one that gets brought up most often here is the UK NHS, but there are plenty of others.
(Ironically, even if you limit yourself to actual communism, Cuba has quite an effective healthcare system. It just relies on not having freedom of movement so doctors can't move to better paid countries)
"The infant mortality rate in Cuba is lower than it is in the United States and is among the lowest in the world"
Not perfect, but far better than you might expect.
How many countries with socialist health care systems then produce new drugs for patients? I can tell you, it's about none. Most of the new drugs worldwide come from the US market. There's no way going around that fact.
Novo -- focusing on diabetes; about 15,000 employees in Denmark: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novo_Nordisk
Novozymes -- enzymes; about 6,500 employees in Denmark: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novozymes
Coloplast -- colostomy bags etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coloplast
Genmab -- cancer etc: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genmab
These are 4 directly medical companies that also are all 4 part of the OMX 20 stock market index (similar to NASDAQ 100, the most 20 valuable public companies). That index also has 2 hearing aid companies (GN and William Demant)
One source estimates 44.000 employees in biotech/medtech in the Copenhagen/Sweden "Medicon Valley" area.
There's also the question of what kind of research is prioritised by the profit motive.
(Human Genome Project is probably the flagship example of such international public research)
Oh and by the way, countries like the Soviet Union have never been known for providing good healthcare solutions or even producing remotely interesting new drugs for their population.
Are you sure you really want socialism for health care? Seems like the facts don't really align with your idealized version of socialism.