Because even if I do not always thrust governments/ Trump with nuclear weapons, I trust citizens even less.

Ka-pi96 said: How do you feel about healthcare in your country? The NHS is really good. Not perfect, but it's still great not having to pay when going to the doctor. There's been a lot of controversy about it's finances lately (governments suck at budgeting things, what's new? ) but on a day to day basis I think it still works fine. I nor any of my family have ever had any real problems with it. How do you feel about gun control in your country? I've literally never seen a gun before here in the UK. So I think they're doing a great job on that front!

It works well for minor illnesses but if you've got cancer or heart disease and you've got the money then going private or flying to the united states for treatment improves your chances of survival by quite a bit. Having a government run healthcare service means poor people have access to health care but it also means the healthcare is mediocre because the goverment struggle's to fund it meaning the drugs, equipment and facillities are cheap and the surgeons and docters don't get paid that well so the most talented ones don't work for the NHS. This is why survival rates for cancer and heart disease in the UK are lagging behind most other developed countries.

Also The goverment pays the drug company's so poorly that they have barely enough money left for new drug research so there is no innovation and no competition either because the goverment has a monopoly. Competition drives up quality and increases innovation, that is why the new groundbreaking advancements in medical care will come from a privatised health service (United states).

This is where the mutual destruction theory puts it validity on check and balance of powers.

Do you trust people with gun? I don't, but when everyone could have a gun, one is less likely to pick his and go against someone because everyone else could them target him. Even though Texas have 2 gun per citizen we don't have shootings every hour... while in my dear country where guns are forbidden, we have several murders with guns about every hour.

1 - A. Economics of scale and examples in countries such as Japan, Australia, Canada, Norway, Germany, United Kingdom, New Zealand that have done so. The United States is a massive market and should be able to negotiate on par with our neighbors Canada. Every day Americans cross the northern border for cheaper medicine.

B. We already have this option for the elderly in the US.  It is called "medicare" and people love it.  After you get to a certain age the government steps in to help with medical expenses. This is covered by taxing people.  For example, when my mom got sick last year here medicare saved her from using a large portion of her retirement savings.

I am not lying, I see precedent in dozens of comparable countries and within my country of how the competing systems work.  If the moral argument of taking care of people doesn't convince you, it is simply good economics to not abandon large portions of populace to poverty.  This creates a criminal class and massive prisons that tax payers pay for.  Social safety nets preserve the middle class which is the best driver of economies by increasing the velocity of money.

I'm a capitalist in 90% of society, it is actual my life in my work.  I think there are base aspects that the government should supply collectively through taxation. Examples: Infrastructure, Law Enforcement, Education, Fire Fighting, Healthcare, National Defense, Nature Preservation.  These serve the interest of all, and yes some benefit more than others, but it raises the tide for the whole.

2 - Your basis seems to stem from thinking I want the US to be Brasil. Now, I respect and admire aspects of your culture, but I look to Australia or Canada as closer examples want to emulate.  They are "sibling nations" in terms of history and culture in how I view policies. Canada is a nice place that didn't decay due to their healthcare or gun laws. It has challenges like any country, but I think they handle these issues in particular better than us.

If you feel Brasil being more like the US system would improve life for people I could understand that as we have different histories, cultures, and economies.  I'm not going to tell a Brasilian how their country should be because I don't live in it and understand it the way they do.  It is possible for different systems to work better in various parts of the world.

1 - So you have digged on the cost of the healthcare, law and tax structure, wages and all between the countries to come to the conclusion that X+Y is less than X?

I have nothing against government providing basic healthcare, as long as it is voluntary and not through taxation. The same argument you are making on scale can be made through association or massive health plans. Like instead of the federal government taxing corporations, people, etc and destinating a ever floating amount to healthcare you have a very specific and independent accountability for the healthcare... so if 200M people in USA doesn't want to either use the private sector through individual consult or plan they can sign up to a collective safety net.

The biggest problem with taxes and government budgeting is that they create taxes saying how they'll use the money but it usually is diverted to other places... and sure economy of scale can be beneficial on making cost lesser, but when you have the government holding that power and corrupt politician that means inflated costs all around.

As I said, I'm against government involvement as much as possible and prefer the options of private education and health, but those are two areas were I concede that due to people being bad at planning it is acceptable that the government make the safety net.

2 - Nymeria, unfortunatelly on the case of gun control USA would be closer to Brazil than to Australia and UK... both countries are island and in the case of UK very small in size and Australia low on people, so it's easier to control the access to weapon.

If USA can't control access to drugs in any efficient scale why do you think they would be successful on doing it for guns?

I'm happy with the healthcare, even though I think the government should invest more into it.

I'm really happy with the gun control.
The closest we ever got to a school massacre in Sweden was a guy with a sword and a Darth Vader mask. And I think he only got like 2-3 people. And that's like the most extreme case, that almost never happens.

1. Yes. The data is freely available. We spend double per person compared to nations of comparable care. Even projections made by both sides have stated medicare for all would be less of a burden on the economy than the current system.  We would save an estimated 100-300 billion a year depending on study you consult.

If people want private healthcare I am open to a compromise of a mixed system where medicare exists for majority, not just the elderly.  

This argument is based on a poor government which is an issue that infects every aspect of public life.  We see corruption in defense spending on a massive scale.  Do we privatize defense? No. Our focus should be on improving and holding people accountable rather than shifting the trust to private sector which has as bad or worse track record with corruption.

I think we are reaching a middle ground and understand how personal views can shape broader topics.

2. I'll compare the US to the EU then in terms of size and population if a singular country doesn't suffice.  I think we can learn from them in terms of what they do better or worse than us.  The US is a great place to live, I think it could be better and has become better over the past 200 years for more and more of its people.  the second amendment was around when most people couldn't vote, when many were in chains or segregated or discriminated against.   Our positive changes have come from protests and changing hearts and minds, not from forcing a government out an installing a new one.

The drug issue is a separate one, but in my community it came from corrupt companies preying on people and over prescribing opioids which is destroying thousands of lives every year.  We could pass legislation making them harder to prescribe and could open clinics to rehabilitate people rather than punish them.  We could also allow cannabis to be legal moving resources away from a mild drug to allow focus on harder ones. Our current failings do not determine our future, we can do better as the policies of the past thirty years have clearly been a failure.

I mean, yes, equivalent services are significantly cheaper in Single-payer systems, for the government, than they are for individual consumers in the US.

It's the concept of consumer-sided monopoly. Companies are *forced* to accept prices and conditions set by the government, as there is no other way to access the market, at all. In the same way that a producer-sided monopoly hikes prices, a consumer-sided monopoly plunges them. Having several competing private healthcare providers would not allow this.

"The biggest problem with taxes and government budgeting is that they create taxes saying how they'll use the money but it usually is diverted to other places... and sure economy of scale can be beneficial on making cost lesser, but when you have the government holding that power and corrupt politician that means inflated costs all around."

I can see that being a problem in Brazil, less so in fully developed democracies, with appropriate systems ensuring transparency. The expenses of individual politicians, and any meetings they might have with potential contractors are *very* closely guarded. Occasional "scandals" do appear, but there is a difference in scale which needs to be stated, here - the biggest one in Canada, for the last few years, was that several senators had used government funds to travel with business class, instead of economy class as they were supposed to. 

1 - We have available data on the expenditure, not on the cost structure (those aren't released data) to affirm the origin of the higher cost on USA healthcare.

Sure private company are corrupt, but if they don't have the government to protect they or to pay for politicians to help keep high margin, the price of their products go down hard.

2 - I'm not talking about legal drugs, I'm talking about USA fighting against Drugsm as they fought against alcohol before... their total incapacity to do that would lead credentials to their inability to prevent guns on the US. 

The misconception of the first part is that the government isn't forcing companies to accept prices, the companies make the politicians arbitrate a very favorable price for them. Monopolies are very much a government thing that beneficial the companies that they like.

You are only looking at one type of bad use of public money. Still, as put before, overhead is added cost so you can't say COST (not price) is lower when you have administrative cost from the government PLUS the cost of the service itself against only the price of the service.

How do I feel about X in my country? I feel he should really get back in the game or make his tv show come back