@AndyD273 my problem is that we seem to want to tax all the wrong things. (i.e. focusing on taxing real productivity while leaving economic rents untouched, instead of the other way around)

@AndyD273 That's the Laffer Curve principle, yes?

@TerranSwett I don't think he hates all Muslims. I think he hates people like Soleimani, and I'm perfectly fine with that.

@TerranSwett I think he's more reflexively contrary and generically xenophobic

(and it doesn't help that he's put much more xenophobic folks in various places near him)

Anyway, what do y'all think of the idea of a family separation policy? A family arrives at the border, and you detain the adults in one facility while placing the children in another?

@AndyD273 Also, do you have any thoughts on the idea of a universal health care system similar to what the UK has?

I realize I'm asking lots of questions and not saying much else. No need to answer these questions if you don't want to.

@TerranSwett Like I said, sometimes necessary as a result of certain prior factors, such as determining whether the children actually belong to the family or not, or as a result of other factors. That said, care should always be taken so that once every pressing issue is taken care of, the family is reunited.

I'd also say that if issues can be resolved without removing the child from the family they should be.

@TerranSwett I'll assume that you don't mind my two cents. The problem is that government-run programs have no incentive to do well, because the jobs held by people within said government aren't reliant on the success of theses programs. And that means people within the system don't like it because they aren't working for people who have their best interests in mind. Case in point - UK in particular is suffering from a lack of people who want to work within the system.

Not to mention the bad wait times, of course. In America, (granted, as long as you have the money for it), you can get emergency care within hours, and complex operations within weeks if necessary. By making healthcare universal, you do make such operations able to everyone, but at the same time, that universal treatment is (arguably) lower than the average treatment between all patients in a non-universal system.

The good news is that a non-universal system can have a competitive market for health insurance, meaning that it's easier to pay for treatments. And the more available cheap insurance is as a result of natural marketplace competition that can only happen in a capitalistic society, the better the standard is.

If I thought a universal healthcare system treated the average person better than a non-universal system, then I would be for it, despite the fact that there are exceptional levels of care that can only be obtained in non-universal (and capitalist-driven) systems, however for the reason enumerated above, I do not believe it to be the case.

@Halfthawed Even with the NHS as bad as it currently is emergency care is still usually less than 5 hours.

Plus another major advantage is that universal healthcare can usually obtain common drugs cheaper than non-universal ones because of essentially monopolising demand.