Free enterprise already has substantial control over the American health system... Hence it's insane cost on the American taxpayer. - Plus aren't all your politicians paid for by various lobby groups like big pharma' anyway? Thus various "enterprises" already exert significant control over your system starting from the very top anyway, thus I am highly dubious that a change towards your 'model' is going to exert any significant cost reductions to the taxpayer.

It is a false dichotomy to assert that your only options are either/or.

Australia leverages a mixed-system, thus capitalism and competition is what still drives it, you should really do your research... Because it's statements like that, which proves you don't really have an understanding of other healthcare models which are superior and cheaper.

Australia's model isn't ranked 2nd best in the world for shits and giggles you know. Do your research.

Taxation and redistribution via various schemes is also not stealing.

Higher cost of living? Not really. The minimum wage starts higher remember, plus we have lots of free value-added services like healthcare.

Our Military is a joke? Well. We aren't a superpower, we aren't ever going to have super-power levels of military forces, nor have we pretended to have as such, but as a domestic middle power we punch above our weight in our geographical region... But we prefer diplomacy over shooting everything that moves.

Hence why we are a part of so many treaties.

Our education system is different. - You are probably comparing our tertiary institutions against your colleges/universities.
But guess what? It hasn't held us back, we have less debt, we have a higher standard of living.

Unemployment goes through highs and lows... But you know, we didn't go through a recession and all that during the financial crisis, so I think we have a good handle on our own economic situation.

False. Welfare is a safety net the assists those who are in need... On a per-capita basis we actually spend less than the USA on welfare, but our system is far more efficient so we can extensively help more people.

A nation can always be judged on how well it treats the most vulnerable in society.

Pemalite If that's you in your avatar then I thank you for your volunteer service (State Emergency Service), years ago I had the honor of being part of the SES, so I understand the time and effort it takes 

Australia's economy, education and healthcare systems work more efficiently than the US system, so if the US wasn't engaged in massive trillion dollar tax breaks for the Very Rich, spending yearly $700 billion in it's corporate military industrial complex, huge bureaucratic costs of its health system, under funding its public education system resulting in some of the Worlds worst outcomes (one of the best outcomes being in Finland's cheaper per head FULL public system), massive tax payer funded Wall Street bailouts... then it might just be a few steps closer to the efficiencies we enjoy in Australia 

The question would be how much to cut and where exactly? Just look at the American military, and what it's done for the world overall since the world wars. Many of these first world countries can only operate as they now do, because of the overall peace the American military has kept for the most part. How much should they cut? Half? More? Only American defense or defense overall for the 'world'? If another country needs America's help and they can't respond in a worthy manner, is that worth it as long as Americans have better healthcare at home? Maybe America needs to charge other countries more for protection, which very well could lead to those countries having to cut into things like healthcare for their people to pay for it.

The problem is the future. How much are you willing to bet when it comes to overall safety? In such a fast paced world with the type of military tech available, how quickly could a problematic war escalate, how quickly could it spread, and how quickly could America or the world respond in a worthy manner in this future weaker case? How many saw Trump becoming Prez and how many still can't believe it? Just look at the insane amount of media coverage that election got and yet the 'worst case scenario' still played out as some would say. I think people are getting a little too comfortable for their own good and certainly take much for granted, myself included at times.

That's not even coming close to covering the military itself, not to mention everything else that would need to shift. It's something that won't easily be solved and will certainly take a very very long time to properly get as right as it can be.

It is me. I am in three different emergency services organizations (SES, CFS and MFS retained paid.). No need for the thanks, it's a big passion of mine.

And because of those efficiencies... We manage to garner larger results per dollar of expenditure than the USA...

Sometimes more "free market" isn't the right choice... Both Socialist/Capitalistic approaches have Pro's and Con's... And thus far the majority of the developed western world in general has proven that using a bit of both aspects is actually the perfect balance to getting the best results for all.

It's like during the Global Financial Crisis... The USA spent trillions bailing out big business... Guess what Australia did? They gave money to middle/low-income earners who in turn went on a spending spree... Which meant we saw a greater bang-for-buck economic improvement as businesses profited, consumers spent... In turn we avoided any recession.

The American Military is highly bureaucratic and extremely inefficient with what it spends it's cash-flow on.
Plus... They aren't leveraging cost-saving measures via modernization in manufacturing and automation...

Which is the advantage China has going forward, extremely cheap workforce and they just underwent their own industrial revolution, so they can get more military capability per buck than the USA can.

The USA needs to leverage it's technical prowess and make cost reductions across every sector of it's military economy... They don't need to specifically cut spending, they just need to make it more efficient so they can get more per taxpayer dollar.

***********

The Flipside is... Does the United States actually need a $600-$700 billion dollar a year military bill? What would it mean if it was half that? Would it mean they would need to work their diplomatic ties with other like-minded nations such as the British, Japan, South Korea, European Union, South Africa, New Zealand, Australia, swathes of South America.... And so on? Because combined, those like-minded nations will always have more capability than even a rising China who is set to overtake the USA anyway.

Should the USA charge other nations for protection? One could argue it already does... Especially if the benefit is trade... Or in our case, we actually train, support, feed, house and work with American soldiers on our soil, our intelligence agencies provide the Americans with information... And save them a buck that way. And vice-versa... And we provide a platform for the Americans to counter threats in the Pacific region and secure resources for wartime.

Nations have actually been developing such ties for decades... And there are various strategic reasons for that.

I mean, Australia doesn't need the USA to remain relatively safe, invading such a inhospitable continent of this size is a logistical nightmare anyway, hence why the Japanese didn't do it, but there are benefits to working together.

Free enterprise doesn't, that's why there is so much strict rules regarding who gets to practice medicine even for the basic things. Not to mention the government closed all competition for medicine.

No, Australia cost of living is extremely high. It was close to the top 10 expensive countries to live in. Also health care isn't free if you pay taxes no matter how you spin it.

Higher standard of living in what exactly? Paying a lot more for the same products?

False, welfare is a trap that leads people down the road of misery.

Sure. Ignore all the lobby groups who pay off your politicians to get things their way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_lobby#Political_influence_in_the_United_States

The USA is also in the top 10.
http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/most-expensive-countries-to-live-in/

I don't think you fully get it though... How expensive a country to live in has absolutely zero bearing on their quality of healthcare.
You are conflating two separate issues and pretending it's one.

Remember we spend less GDP per capita on Healthcare, if anything that means potentially less taxes, not the opposite.

A few indexes actually... Such as the "where to be born". - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where-to-be-born_Index

A good list can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_of_living

Sydney, Melbourne, Perth and Adelaide also tends to rank higher on quality of living than any American cities as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercer_Quality_of_Living_Survey

But here: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/07/these-countries-have-the-highest-quality-of-life

As for the expense of products... With Tariffs now being rolled out in the USA, you better get used to higher pricing... But guess what, your dollar has higher purchasing power and your nation has shit minimum wage, so it's going to be a bigger hit to the pocket than ours.

Plus our working and lower classes aren't stagnant either... Our minimum wage of $18.93 per hour certainly helps... So who cares if we pay an extra dollar for toilet paper? We can actually afford it.

Nope. That is absolutely false.
Welfare can also help economically, we have businesses here that geared their business to welfare recipients and profited greatly from it...
For example: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-20/radio-rentals-reaps-$90-million-in-centrelink-payments/6333690
Almost half of their revenue came from welfare, not a bad effort.

If your welfare system is a trap that leads people down a road of misery, then your welfare system is probably garbage and needs an overhaul, welfare is there to help the most vulnerable, those who are most in need, there needs to be checks and balances to ensure the system isn't being abused however...

Because here our welfare system will assist people with training/education, drug tests and ensures people are looking for work... And soon if someone has a history of abuse like gambling they may be placed on a welfare card which has a whitelist of where the income can be spent.

It's no wonder we have less homeless.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homeless_population

************

Now that I have provided citations for everything, I expect you to do the same going forward.

Then why is is it the richer class that is growing the most?

Ford was selling cars to only 2% of the market, when companies accepted the demand of higher wages, less hours and a 2 days of weekend they were not crying because it would mean less profits...in fact no, the workers were more relaxed and it increased productivity, workers also did something else that was great, they were enjoying their free time and went out and spend money! Ford and other companies went from potentially selling to 2% of the market to potentially selling cars to 90% (and yeah inventions/automation faster manufacture processes helped aswell).

Honestly people don't want to look to the bigger picture, look to the last job report.  240K jobs added! That sounds like great news but it is only for the market because if you look deeper into the report you see that the number of people working dropped with +60.000 and that +300.000 people got a second or a third job...so far the 8hours a week last month alone added potentially another big group of people who can't make it with only making 8 hours a day.

The cell phone market is down especially thanks to the lower class having a harder time to buy new cell phones, the car sales are down and it is five years ago that the sales were that low and that includes a growing group of people who can't afford a new car and buy used cars.

The problem with politics is that it's not as stable as something like the military. Politics may work here and now, but a change to leadership of a nation is all it takes to change things drastically in some cases, and that happens often enough. Not often do countries develop and stockpile world changing weapons like nukes. The main point is we don't know the future, and neither of us can make a really strong argument as to what will or won't happen as of now, let alone if you start making significant changes to certain sectors.

With a weakened American military, will that persuade other nations to focus more on their own military to catch up or eventually surpass? If they start to catch up, do things change or does America just stand around and watch healthier and happier for that moment? Tech may be more efficient if it can't easily be taken out by the enemy, but what if the enemy develops something to easily take that tech out? Your budget to counter is much lower now and your immediate defense is then dumber tech and people again anyway. Does America dare rely more on the rest of the world for military matters when in the past it tended to be America to the rescue?

There are just way too many unknowns, and safety typically trumps everything else. There was a documentary about WWI and WWII that I watched years back, that mentioned some European scholars were tasked with analyzing WWI and how to prevent another war of such magnitude. They eventually felt strongly that they understood the underlying problems behind it all and how a second world war could likely be avoided going forward. Apparently the papers even printed stories about this, but likely as propaganda to make the European people feel safe. Even though they worked with European Governments using their idea's, WWII happened anyway. 

Australia would likely be fine unless things got way way out of hand, but even in that case, how would you feel if elsewhere in the world, people were suffering because of war, when it would have been likely not to have happened, or easily stopped by America if they had remained on course as they are presently? Would you say the fact that Americans had better healthcare makes up for it?

I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong, I'm just saying I think serious caution needs to be at the forefront and baby steps taken to a future that fits more in line with what you're describing. Which is much easier said than done, especially in a world of I want what I want now and expect it asap.

Australia ranked Second in what exactly? Being too expensive to live in maybe (9th currently http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/most-expensive-countries-to-live-in/). The United States is actually relatively cheap, especially in Republican states. It just certain States like New York and California that is way too expensive because of the democrats in their want of big government. When the government leaves the industries alone, it gets cheaper. Look at Lasik eye surgery and how much cheaper it got when the government-backed off. Also, bringing up lobbyist is exactly proving my point that the federal government will screw the American people for money. So thank you for making my point again. That is why we shouldn't give them more power other than protecting us. 

Minimum wage is for people who put in minimum effort, thus get what they deserve. Raising the minimum wage will increase our cost of living and force automation to replace their job. We have a low unemployment rate and we want to keep it that way, unlike Australia. We have a lot of homeless in mostly liberal areas that have a lot more government control, go figure.

Welfare is a trap because it incentivizes a lot of people to not work and live a depressing life knowing they aren't contributing to society. Also, a lot of welfare recipients end up resorting to criminal activities to make even more money and end up in jail.

At Bolded 1: You are aware that the US are ranked there, too, right? Also, while we're at your link, it says the US rank 17th in Human Freedom and 28th on Personal Freedom. Australia? 4th and 11th, respectively. Also in your link, Australia ranks 10th in the happiness rating compared to 15th for the US.

Because there's nothing there but farmland and cows. Of course it's cheap there, that's true for everywhere where's nothing but pastures. Rural land is always much cheaper, simply because the Terrain is much cheaper. Since you compare those to Australia, how about making it an Apples to Apples comparison and compare those Republican States to the Australian Outback with the Northern Territory, for example?

New York is not more expensive due to Big Government, it's because it's freaking New York, a very big city with limited space. Since Space comes at a premium, anything you want to build there gets much more expensive, and thus shops have to sell much more expensive to compensate that. Even if you remove the government totally here, it would still be much, much more expensive than those rural towns in republican states. If you take any backwater Town and would compare it to Austin, Texas, for instance, then of course Austin would be miles more expensive in every which way despite being in a deep red state.

Minimum wage is to ensure you don't get screwed over by your employer. And automation will come either way, if you bend over let yourself get screwed by your employer with an unlivable wage or not.

For instance, Luxembourg has one of the highest minimum wages, but also one of the richest economies and companies are flocking to the country by the bandwagon, so much that the country has more jobs than inhabitants and half the workforce commutes from the neighboring countries. And they happily do so for a minimum wage, as the luxembourgish minimum wage is much higher than the minimum wage in their countries, and higher than what they would earn for their respective jobs in their respective countries. But the companies wouldn't go to another place with cheaper workforce, and it's certainly not just because of taxes (those are getting harmonized throughout the EU, as a result, Luxembourg is no tax haven anymore).