P.S. On population, New Zealand would rank 25th if it were a state, just ahead of Louisiana. On GDP, it would rank 29th, just ahead of Oklahoma. (Just some context to bear in mind the next time we try to draw comparisons between New Zealand and the USA as a whole.)

All very fascinating, but you’re changing the subject. The claims before us are as follows:

1. Private organizations practice religious discrimination and do not provide services on the basis of need.
2. Many people think a bad Christian deserves help more than a good atheist.
3. Direct government aid is always “much fairer”.

Did this information come to you in a dream, or do you have the data?

Should have said average doctor, but you got me for once.

You’ll be ignoring Cassidy, Price, and Paul then.

Just look at NZ. Our average wage is quite a lot less than yours (around NZ $50000) but there are a lot less people in poverty, we live longer, we have much lower corruption, more freedom, lower taxes, a higher rating in economic indices such as ease of doing business, single-payer healthcare for all, more press freedom, better wage parity etc. We’re even more peaceful. This is despite our unemployment rate currently being slightly higher than yours – 4.9% vs 4.3%. (Both are low by international standards.

Whenever I’ve said, in at least three posts before the election, that the US should distribute the Electoral College votes for President more proportionally, you’ve criticized me. I’m glad to see to see we’ve made progress re fairness. I’ve never said it should change Senate representation as in the number of senators. There’s a case to be made for keeping that as it is.

I’d give a doctor’s opinion about health care economics about the same weight that I’d give an astrologer’s opinion about astrophysics.

“The problem with letting the private sector do it is that they decide who deserves help. That means, for example, the people of your own religion get a lot more than atheists, for example because so many think a bad Christian deserves help more than a good atheist. The government distributes help on the basis of need, which is much fairer.”

Everything in my knowledge and experience tells me that’s a pile of baloney, but knowing you as a strong rigorous empiricist, I know you can back up your opinions, however eccentric, with solid, airtight, substantive, unimpeachable, unbiased, reproducible hard data that you will generously share with us. Thanks in advance.

Oh, my. And yet, amazingly, they end up being the lesser evil.

Yes, of course, entitlement reform also is mathematically and actuarially inevitable.