I was thinking of this: "Like everywhere else it's been tried...let's watch the mexican economy tank in 3...2...1..."

I don't know what you mean by "stealing from future generations". If you have a budget neutral (i.e. not deficit spending) based, tax financed, public healthcare system, how will that be problematic? Look at Sweden for example. There is a single payer universal healthcare system paid for by taxes, at the same time there is a budget surplus and the national debt has been quite rapidly reduced in the last decade. Are the current generation of swedes "stealing" from the next generation of swedes?

Single payer universal health care means healthcare is a figure in the budget, just like infrastructure, defense etc. If there is a budget deficit you have to cut down on something (infrastructure, defence, healthcare, whatever). People are "forced to pay into it" no more or less they are forced to pay into defense or infrastructure. Having too large expenses for healthcare is entirely possible, reasons can be for example if you have a shift in demographics where fewer young people pays for the healthcare of a large aging population (Japan has this problem whereas the US does not). This can cause economic issues, but the same can be true if you have an aging airforce.

Still trolling? Let me repeat his statements for you, in a new wording

- All of the "first world" economies, except the US, pretty much have universal socialized health care.

- The systems are popular in these countries (they are all democracies, so they would have to be quite popular to remain).

- All of these economies are of course facing more or less rough times at the moment, but their economies would still be regarded as "healthy" on a global scale or seen over a few decades.

I don't know what you are getting at here. The high standard of living in for example western europe and the US can of course be said to at least in part be due to the exploitation of third world countries.

You were arguing that public health care leads to a collapse of a countrys economy, and now you are arguing that when a countrys economy collapses for whatever reason, that country will no longer afford its public healthcare? That is not the same thing?

Is the NHS in the UK inadequate these days? I don't live there but I'm quite sure I'd be happy with "just" the NHS if I lived there. Having other insurances to cover e.g. loss of income from illness is one thing. I wouldn't have to have private insurance to cover transplants or cancer treatment, nor would be in a better situation to get such treatment than my poorer neighbor, and thats the important bit.

We were only discussing whether a public universal healthcare system automatically tanks the economy. Whether this system provides better or worse care, or does it for ore tax money than would otherwise be spent in private insurance is a completely separate discussion.

(but as a clue, I have seen lots of studies saying that for example the US healthcare system provides about half as much "care per dollar" than most single payer systems. A lot of this is of course due to legal and bureaucratic overhead).

Which ever you like. I'd probably go for standard of living, life expectancy, poverty level, unemployment, number of people in higher education, literacy etc., as well as national parameters like deficit, debt.

I'd guess there is actually a strong correlation between public universal healthcare and healthy economies. But not because public universal healthcare gives a better or worse economy, but because public universal healthcare as a good economy as a prerequisite.

Would people really feel "forced" if there was a tax financed single payer system financed by taxes? Does someone feel "forced" to pay for police and other services with taxes? Would anyone rather have a private company to call in case of fire, than pay tax money for that service? Am I making a weird extrapolation between police and healthcare?

Name one what? One country with universal healthcare, that has had a decent economy for at least the last few decades?

Whats been tried? Universal healthcare?

Still, they didn't invent those sequences, nor have they created a device or substance related to it. The sequence and it's connection to health effects is a discovery and nothing else. They should invent a medicine and patent that. Being able to patent a "pattern"/"sequence"/"mutation" or "gene" is nonsense. I haven't heard any reasonable explanation as to why that is a good idea. Wouldn't a politician that ran on the promise to kill this sort of patent win big?

I think that as The importance of The US marken declines (it will follow the same trend for medicine that it has for cars), lawmakers will finally see that the US patent and legal systems are very detrimental for business. Companies will avoid having R&D in the US because of the massive legal overhead costs. If I can develop software/medicine/tech in Europe or Asia, and sell it there, thereby avoiding massive patent problems and legal processes then this will be a more and more attractive option. I don't know what it will take for the US to reform its patent system, but it is necessary. Likewise, as long as companies can haves portfolio of software patents that they use as leverage and threat, something is very very wrong. Imagine a country where a tech company with 100 employees create a piec of software and sell it, without ONE of these employees being a lawyer. Sounds odd? Then you are an American!

I view the risk of the US egen trying to get Assange as zero. I.e they are a non-issue and the rest is just conspiracy theories. What are you insinuating really? That the US is trying to use the sex case to get Assange from the Swedes? Why not get him from the UK then, they have the same history and agreements as the Swedes do (e.g no extradiction when death penalty possible). The only remotely reasonable conspiracy here is that this case exists because some spin doctor in the US wants it to. The result is that wikileaks and Assange has been questioned which was then the desired result.

as far as I know Sweden does the same thing

which extradictions are you talking about?