> More competitiveness necessarily implies more frictional unemployment. You can't have one without the other. Nonsense. You’re thinking about competition for

> More competitiveness necessarily implies more frictional unemployment. You can't have one without the other. Nonsense. You’re thinking about competition for jobs. But I’m talking about competition to hire. >I'm not saying you should, I'm saying an argument that points to universal healthcare as an objective practice requires it. You’re asserting that it does. I’m arguing that an argument for it doesn’t require it. That’s one for practitioners and a wider audience to flush out. > Exactly. There isn't an agreed upon objective basis for what qualifies as 'essential'. And as before, I’m pointing out that aside from some clear cut cases, it’s not required to be “objective”. There’s no objective reason why we enjoy various freedoms in the US, other than emotional reasons and desires.