Two points. Firstly and most importantly thank you for keeping such a high standard of discourse. It's appreciated. Secondly, many of Mackey's points are soun

Two points. Firstly and most importantly thank you for keeping such a high standard of discourse. It's appreciated. Secondly, many of Mackey's points are sound policy: health insurance should be universally deductable (or not) and HSAs may or may not be very effective. However, others are disingenuous; all healthcare is rationed, in the US it's rationed by ability to pay whereas in Canada and the UK it's rationed by medical severity; food and shelter are already commonly provided by governments; the existence of faceless bureaucracies limiting care in traditional health insurance agencies and last but not least the Constitution's explicit disclaimer being treated as an exclusive list of rights to be guaranteed. Most crucially in my view it entirely ignores the issue of insurers' ability to redefine their risk pools. What protection does Mackey's plan offer someone with a preexisting condition? Someone who develops a chronic and expensive condition? Someone who becomes unemployed? These are severely problematic use cases in the current system.