1 - It's cheaper to pay for your own medical care than to pay the government to do it, and people not being taxed could save that money
2 - Second amendment reason for creation is to fight the tyrannic government, so if they can have that gun so you should as well, unless you think it's possible for the population to defend against the government using only revolvers.
1 - that explains why it's so expensive here in the US where private insurance rules, and so cheap in countries like the UK, Brazil, Sweden, Norway, and many others.
2- That explains why all those other countries have so much freedom, despite no second amendment.
2B - If revolvers aren't good enough, then what makes other weapons good enough? The government spends over $600,000,000,000 a year on the military. That includes top secret technologies that make even the best civilian weapons look like a revolver.
1 - Government involvement in the market as a whole help a lot in increasing the costs. And in Brazil compared to our GDP the private healthcare is quite expensive, 1h appointment on a regular doctor cost about 1/2 a minimum month wage, health plan for a 30y old citizen around 1/3 of the minimum month wage while a senior plan about 4 times a minimum month wage... does that sound cheap to you? Or putting in USA money, single consult about 960USD healthcare plan to young people 8k/year and for seniors 100k/year. Is that cheap for you in comparison?
2 - Brazil freedom is very low, and go there and convince your fellow citizen on abolishing 2nd amendment... while you do that look that in Brazil we have guns forbidden and our most peaceful capital (big city) is more violent than your most violent one.
The worse weapon government can develop like nuclear and bioweapon isn't much advisable to use against its own citizen since it could destroy its own country, so repression could be by using tank, assault rifle and drones... besides the first, the other 2 citizen can have access to.
1 - Mass negotiation is different than the full government administration on healthcare. The government may not be doing profit like corporations, but employees will still make money comparable to private sector, if not they would move to there, and plus the overhead of the government doing it itself.
You would pay more taxes because you prefer the government to administrate your money instead of yourself??? Them never complain how bad it administrate it and put resources on the wrong place.
2 - That is the justification of it when made. Was there any weapon restricted under 2nd amendment when it was created?
1 - It would negatively affect insurance, pharmaceuticals, medical device manufacturers, and yes, the doctors and nurses salaries as costs would be cut.
I would pay more than I do now to avoid the spectre of fear our system has. If I lose insurance I am a lost cause for insurance companies and would spend tens of thousands of dollars every year because I was born with conditions I had no control over and despite my best efforts with exercise, diet and medication. I think it makes us lesser as a country when every year we allow people to be destroyed or die because they are poor and have health issues. It saves the economy money even based on the detractors projections and it is a moral stance to take care of others.
2 - No, but then should we cease weapons allowed at the time the second amendment was created? Because if not, I want a nuke because the government has tons of them. I've never met even the most fervent supporter of second amendment that would agree with that.
1 - Why do you think all those costs would go down? I don't know of a single stance in Brazil where the costs for the government to do was lower than for private sector even when government offer a much worse solution. Just as an example, on something that cost is quite simple to figure out....
A child school in Brazil... you can have one for under 100 USD/month on private school, yet the public equivalent cost the government over 300/month and one of them doesn't have strikes and can still make some profit.
You are only lying to yourself, if you are willing to pay more just because it may happen that in the near future you would cost more than you pay, then someone that isn't costing to the system is paying for you without using, and that isn't moral, even more when it's forced burden upon others.
2 - Go there and develop your nuke if you so much want. Or well when it get sold on your gun store buy it. Or read the above response on why a citizen wouldn't need a nuke to oppress against its own citizen.