Again, lots of great points. Glad to see HnF is atleast thinking about these things.

I agree that we could probably afford the socialized health care if there wasn't so much bloat in our budget. However, I still disagree that socialized health care is beneficial in the long run. Now, before you think I'm some raging Libertarian lunatic, hear me out. Let's take Canada for example. In America, when you get old, due to private health care, you should have the ability to pay your bill with your insurance and your insurance has made an agreement with you on the cost of an X dollar capped policy. Now, in a country with socialized health care, basic health care needs are covered and that's why when you ask the majority of people what they think about their socialized health care, they say "Hey, no complaints here!" However, there is a HUGE gotcha that nobody likes to talk about. If you are the unlucky person that gets stuck with some sort of issue that would require a risky surgery, who do you think gets to decides if the surgery was worth it? Suprise! Not you. Some unelected official is now deciding the fate of your life and your options are either A. Be able to pay it out of pocket. B. Go without. Now, before you say that not all things are covered under private insurance, I agree. However, you signed the dotted line on that one. You choose the amount and type of coverage you received for your investment. With socialized medicine, you get whatever the government gives you and if that isn't enough, pay it out of pocket.

Now, you could argue that these are very rare scenarios and I would tend to agree. However, the US constitution was never invented to protect only the masses. It was there to protect people from this very thing. YOU should be able to control your health care. YOU should be able to decide if that risky surgery is worth the investment. As someone with a best friend who is paralyzed from the mid-stomach down and on Medicaid, do you think they'll ever give him the hundreds of thousands of dollars to attempt a risky surgery to give him back the ability to walk? Let me ask you... do you think the government will place the same value on his ability to walk as he would? No, they kept him living and now that's all they do. There are electrical stimulation bikes, etc that have demonstrated a chance of helping, but the government doesn't place a high enough value on his chance to walk, so he goes without. I've watched first hand how socialized health care shits all over the people in these situations. One more example, he was given an electric wheelchair and it somehow ended up breaking. It was a couple thousand dollars for the motor and Medicaid told him that they didn't cover the motor and he wasn't due for a new wheelchair for another entire year. Someone in the community ended up donating a spare until his parents could buy him another.

As for the regulation, I don't really know how to address this as you kind of just made a blanket statement. "Economists" have endorsed ridiculous notions in the past, so I need something more specific if you would like to hear my views on it. In regards to the Big Bang, I don't know much about the history of the financial markets, so I won't really comment on that.

And that's the boat I'm in (defensive only wars, no socialized medicine, less taxes).

I think we agree on all the points. I, also, don't want poor people to die. But, I'm not going to infringe on the liberties that are granted to us in the constitution to help take care of other people. I think we SHOULD help others, but due to my constitutional nature, I'm looking out for the guy that doesn't want to help the poor in any way. Do I agree with it? No. However, infringing on his right to think that way is a worse alternative in my book.

All in all, I think we're naturally going to be inclined to disagree. I'm arguing for the Constitution, but if you're not from the US, that's just a piece of paper. But for Americans, it's the only thing that still represents the American dream. If we don't enforce the policies within it, it might as well be used to wipe up shit. That, I believe, is the biggest difference between our opinions. I see the Constitution as the holy grail of Liberty and Euros prolly see it as shit paper

Great conversation though. Interested what your opinions are now in regards to socialized health care and my friends situation?

Yeah the constitution changes things a bit in regard to policy. Bare in mind that it is also open to interpretation, like the debate over what a 'militia' entails in the 2nd amendment etc. So you could probably come at it from an angle arguing for universal healthcare of citizens. It's quite inefficient, just as any large government endeavor will be, but there's a reason why any proposed cuts or changes to healthcare here would be political suicide. Your system is way more inefficient per capita as well..

If you interpret the constitution as saying that universal healthcare is inapplicable because it infringes on the rights of, as you admittedly said, a person who is an exception to the rule then fair enough we can agree to disagree. All I can say is I've never heard of that happening here, and our health service has massive popularity amongst taxpayers. I think (but I'm not 100% sure) that if your friend was British then he would get the treatment for free, given that the procedure is available on the nhs (usually is unless extremely specialised) and that the procedure is entirely for health benefits. By that I mean, it can't be considered cosmetic surgery or anything unnecessary for it to be given for free.

Personally I think the most efficient healthcare system is one which is controlled by the government primarily, but allows private contractors in where applicable and allows pharmaceutical companies to compete in selling the government drugs. The latter part seems straight forward, but governments do shady deals where they agree to buy a drug from one company at a fixed price without looking at other sellers (the US is guilty of that big time).