Ok, then i don’t have much to add to my previous comment, thanks for your answer :) !

Seems like Lemmygrad wasn’t such a bad place to get answers then, thanks :) !

However, your argument doesn’t seem to hold : if you’re saying that capitalists could make public care trash(, e.g. by increasing the out-of-pocket amount), then that’s what they’ve already done in a lot of countries.
I mean, can you cite a country which doesn’t offer the possibility to subscribe to a private insurance(, on top of the mandatory subscriptions to the public one) ? The difference here would be that those subscribing to a private insurance plan wouldn’t be forced to subscribe to the public one, and wouldn’t complain.
They’d still perhaps try to destroy the public one, by force of habit, but wouldn’t be able to complain anymore of being forced by the state to contribute agaisnt their will. Correct me if i’m wrong, but i don’t see why they wouldn’t try to destroy the public system now, and why offering them an alternative would increase their attacks ?

Or just let the citizen choose between both systems ?

One day he’s criticized for saying that Hitler was a communist, the other for apparently assuming his love of nazis.
There’s an old series of books by Terry Goodkind that i’ve read as a child, named the Sword of Truth, each book has a wizard’s rule, and here’s the first one :

People are stupid. They believe things mainly because they either want them to be true or fear them to be true.

I’m not particularly fond of these books nor do i agree with this rule, but if you’re political then you’re judging real political actions, such as enacted laws, like adults do, or you’re eventually discussing assumed theories, but not unfair little excerpts regretted afterwards by the one who did them, and we can hopefully both agree that we should not explain our worldview or vote based on the latter, its ‘just for fun’/‘not serious’.
At least most journalists know that it’s only about influencing his future decisions, but you don’t if you believe it was ‘a coming out’/‘something to be discussed seriously’.
That’s just my two cents, thanks for reading my insults towards ~you, and let’s continue not changing.

conspiracy theorists taking us for idiots, nothing new(, even if you’re taking it quite farther than usual).

On the side of real stuff happening : D.Trump said a lot in his inauguration speech, and just put Cuba back on the terrorist states list, as well as signing over twenty executive orders, etc. Seems worth more discussion than your fantasies.

Just unfortunate that, like for D.Trump, you’re too used to discussing the form instead of the content, we’re worth more than selected/biased excerpts.