You may have guessed that I'm not from the US. Some additional thoughts: I'm the last guy to want to pay high taxes, but I believe that some form of minimalist

You may have guessed that I'm not from the US. Some additional thoughts: I'm the last guy to want to pay high taxes, but I believe that some form of minimalist government is generally not a bad idea. What government is really good at is making sure that new transformative technology, that generally turns into some form of monopoly along the way, because there was precisely one inventor, gets properly commoditized along the way. Examples: Telephony, Electricity, "Water on demand" like in your shower, THE INTERNET, healthcare (affordable access to doctors), etc.(?) None of you would argue that at&t, spring and whoever else is part of that oligopoly should be able to collude and turn basic telephony into a luxury. Maybe not so valid anymore because voip, but think 20 years ago. Same goes for electricity and The InternetTM, which is basically a goddess that we nerds pray to. No one in their right mind, except for some legislators and billionaire idiots, would argue against net neutrality. Theres way too much at stake there. This is one of the very few true government functions, in my opinion. Ensuring access to utilities (and at this point, the internet is a utility. it is cheap to provide and runs the world). I have no problem with a couple actors getting really rich providing internet access, but that privilege should come with some rules, because the implications for society would be immense. ^This is a natural monopoly. The same goes for healthcare. Healthcare is immensely important to society as a whole. Even ignoring the personal hardship of slowly withering away, having large amounts of people die for decades costs a lot of money (because we don't really let them die, there are all kinds of other subsidies that absorb some cost of the dying, like social security). Providing Healthcare is easy. Maybe not in absolute terms, but given where we are at as a society, treating common ailments, even acutely life-threatening ones like pneumonia, is pretty simple. In fact, we've gotten so good at healthcare that we are continually driving up cancer as a leading cause of death, simply because there are not many other causes of death left. Healthcare is a monopoly in that who gets to practice medicine is strictly regulated. Government agencies decide who gets to be a doctor and who doesn't. The process that promotes people to doctors is probably somewhat fair and efficient, but that doesn't change the facts. Beyond that, there is a weird kind of monopolistic process to getting sick. People who get sick are routinely not responsible for getting sick. A sick person NEEDS healthcare. There are no effective alternatives to dealing with sickness (other than suffering through it). Therefore, all hospitals hold mini-monopolies over their region, and it has been shown that hospitals do not engage in market mechanics. Where there are multiple hospitals to choose from, they are usually being acquired by companies to cut out the price competition. A very small percentage of people who've got access to healthcare pay for it themselves, anyway. Companies pay for it, establishing a clear rift between those who work and those who don't. And people who are sick can't find work, for obvious reasons. Companies who are serious about the health of their employees view healthcare as a necessity. But they don't bill it as a necessity. They call it a perk. People who work are inherently better than those who don't. Last point: Opponents of regulated healthcare claim that it rewards inefficiency. I agree with government fucking a lot of programs up in terms of costs, but the american healthcare systems is one of the most expensive in the world, even when just compared to those that are operated entirely by governments. It seems to me that the government staying out of it rewards inefficiency, in this case. I hold a health insurance policy from an international healthcare provider, that is not tied to any single one jurisdiction in particular. It costs me about $1.5k per year, for state of the art healthcare, anywhere in the world, except the U.S. (means that wherever I am, if I get sick I can walk into a healthcare facility of my choice and receive treatment. If the countries' healthcare standards are deemed too low, they will fly me out to a first world country when necessary). They have no problem covering the U.S. as well, but the plan that includes that would be $5k per year.