Thank you for your detailed response, I'll try to honor it.

> Ethical disagreements exist. You may not think that this is an urgent ethical issue, but I do. I'm not going to say that your position is ethically acceptable just because it would make you feel better - sorry.

Yes, we do disagree. But, we have to go forward together by dealing with each other honorably and not operating from the default assumption that the other is below reproach or sub-human in their thinking. We need to hammer home that the perfect should not be the enemy of the good (myself included.)

We have to make deals and compromise to implement any policies that will be durable and maintain their original spirit. Think Medicare and SS as examples of big compromise bills that lasted, and the ACA as a contra-example. If you don't believe in your bones that we need to compromise on the big stuff, then life will be full of disappointments.

> superior both in terms of outcomes and in terms of basic decency

What about our obesity epidemic, isn't that a factor contributing to our outcomes? Do all countries use the same measure when tallying outcomes? What are our comparative outcomes for health care at the extremes? Like, when your twins are born 2'10" and 2'11" respectively and still live and are healthy after 7 years?

I'm sorry, but respectfully, that talking point is so cherry-picked, and ignores so many factors, that it is meaningless. It is only intended to shock and to shame. Reality is more complicated than just "outcomes are worse." Do not insult my intelligence.

> I believe there will come a time when the right to healthcare ...

Medicare turns people away all the time, it's actually hard to get them to pay a claim. A right is a only truly a right when it can't be denied. Just start asking simple questions, and the 'HC as a right' concept falls apart.

Like, which health care procedures are a right and which are elective? Sex reassignment isn't a right ... this year ... maybe next year ... until the Republicans take power again ... see what I mean? A service like health care isn't so simple, nor black and white, as you paint it.

I do not believe you can make your "100% covered" math work AND pay doctors and hospitals such that they will continue to work for you such that you don't wind up with a doctor shortage and induce rationing.

I do believe that my "maximum possible" can reach an effective "100% covered". Think of how cheap technology and process changes can make things over time. The world is not a static system, it's dynamic and fluid! For example, Amazon.com, a recent phenomena, is being described as an anti-inflationary force across the entire economy because they are so effective at driving down costs and haggling on prices!

> pie in the sky market-based schemes

Come now... Consider there is no rationing of food. Food on store shelves regularly goes bad and we have to throw it out, we produce such an abundance.

Consider the US manufactures 8x the amount of clothes that actually gets sold. If it weren't for Africa taking, basically for free, all of our excess clothes, we would be incinerating the excess at the end of each fashion season.

Consider veterinary services and how much affordable they are relative to comparable human health care. Like, vet services paid out-of-pocket, no insurance at all affordable. Why? How?!

Consider health care and student loans - both seeing spiraling cost increases. What's the connection? Heavy government involvement and crony influence.

What I'm saying is ...

Market forces perform! Pay people up to what the market will bear, and you'll never have a shortage of workers to provide a service. Then, encourage competition and allow people to shop based on price and quality. Next, the market will control for excess and will find a stable value for each service that will be as optimal as it can get. Finally, if you can ease up on regulations, then the cost of providing a service goes down further and businesses will reinvest in themselves, which can further lower the costs.

It's economics. The model for how to unleash market forces and make services cheap and accessible exists in standard textbooks.

The fact that health care is currently expensive and people's lives hang in the balance makes this discussion more than just economics. I think that's mainly what you are driving at. And I respect your passion in that regard. Honestly, I get you on that! Your whole paragraph there is full of bitterness for me, but why can't you get me, friend?

I'm passionate too AND I don't want anyone to suffer! Like, no one normal wants other people to suffer. You know that, right? Finally, if it is true that I actually want to alleviate suffering just like you ...