but if you are comparing it to similar social programs across the globe

Socialized medicine agrees to some extent in most of these countries you're probably alluding to, but it has always existed to some extent in America. the ACA, however, is not the same as what is happening in Canada or Cuba or Spain or England. And England is not the same as Canada or Cuba or Spain and the same goes for all of them.

Another fallacy.

or social programs in the U.S. currently, none have ever caused a single bubble of any sort ever

Increase of debt and inflation is an automatic bubble. Even Paul Krugman admits that creation of more bubbles is necessary to curb current bubbles. He's a liberal, but he's not politically correct in avoiding the fact that they are bubbles.

You are confusing a generalized (and quite faulty I'd argue) theory that ALL and ANY government automatically no matter what is more expensive and less efficient than private services doing the exact same thing

This is usually the case, however my views don't rest on that one case. They rest on the morality of using coercion to reinforce social programs, devaluing the means to production via a federal reserve and land grants to major corporations, and this cultist belief that government will solve our problems. I believe that free people are necessary as a morality. The blend of government with the private sector was quite successful in expanding military powers in the USA and Nazi Germany; hell, the GPS came to be because of it. None of that matters when I see the blood shed that resulted from all of this. A lot of Third Way economists see the potential for business and government to work together as empirically satisfying since we do know that government can provide unlimited funding for businesses to sell them extremely powerful artillery, and the internet gets created during the middle of all that and everyone just shouts out that it was because of government involvement. No one really seems to care that a consumer populace demands efficient communicative services but don't really demand (nor can they afford) tanks and missiles. Your support of government keeps these harsh realities alive. The DEA, NSA, CIA, FBI, ATF, FDA, EPA, are paid by your fear of losing them and fear of violating them. It's like a brain tumor that doesn't necessarily kill you. Some people don't try to get them removed because the procedure itself could kill them. They figure they might as well live with it. Now let's say that person lives for thousands of years and basically learns to accept that that tumor is just a natural part of the body and shouldn't be touched. In fact, that tumor sometimes grants short term highs and adrenaline rushes.

Eh, I'm getting off topic. Most of this you probably disagree with anyway.

it is not a fair comparison because private insurance is still available.

It's a scam that drives up costs. The worst thing to happen was when government initially gave tax incentives for employers to provide their employees with health insurance. it took away from their wages and gave them health insurance chosen by the employer, which fed revenue into health insurance companies. The more people who have insurance, the less doctors care about the costs of their services. The less doctors care about the costs, the less pharmaceutical companies and healthcare industries care, and the costs go up. Companies that practiced alternative health plans (like Whole Foods) made employees more conscious of what the medical care they were getting costed them. It made them shop around for cheaper doctors, and also increased their likeliness of getting yearly check-ups. With the government supported insurance styles, people don't care about how much their medical care costs. This drives up prices.

I can see it being a natural process, that once government gets involved, it will only get bigger and bigger to cover new problems that came from government being involved in the first place. Now the ACA requires that every citizen have some kind of insurance plan (unless they're poor enough to get government provided health care), which will, if history of increased demand for health insurance means anything, drive up the costs of health care. This also gives government more incentive to be involved in the health decisions of Americans in order to lower their own costs.

None of this needs to happen, and I know you think it does because the alternative seems so awful to you (leaving people responsible for their own problems), but people really aren't that dumb. We don't need to expand this hierarchical structure where the business owners (Capitalists, CEOs, whatever) become a vital aspect of government policies. Canada's healthcare is slow as shit for average Canadians, but Canada also has a huge amount of poverty that doesn't give a shit about the quality and speediness of healthcare. They get free healthcare, and that's all they care about.

I understand this idea that a fucked up healthcare system needs "reform." But more government isn't the answer. It's like hitting a kid harder and harder as his behavior gets worse. But I suppose that's another thing that contributes to acceptance of authority and violent coercion... the idea that physical punishment is an effective method of raising a child.

Obamacare has been verified by reputable consumers in Massachusetts

Not all of them.

And it's a smaller economy with less people to impress in the first place. Most Floridians agree with the strict anti-marijuana laws, this doesn't make strict marijuana laws moral or practical on an even larger scale.

There has never in the history of the world been any instance of a privatized system being less expensive or offering better care.

The private sector in the Soviet Union owned only 1% of the agricultural industry (the rest was owned by the government) and provided over a third of the food to the people. Without the private sector it is likely that that third of the population that WASN'T starving would have died.

And as previously pointed out, the government is pretty good at expanding the military and greatly improving their methods of warfare. The private sector has little financial incentive to produce such weapons of mass destruction other than the promise of a huge government check. Forced mobilization of large governments (i'm talking Fascism here) has greatly utilized the private sector into providing for government needs. This doesn't say anything about whether this actually benefited society... it's all a numbers game. The Death Star employs plenty of jobs and keeps the economy going... in the direction of the Empire.

you are operating under the wrong assumption that all government programs are less efficient than any private program

I hope you've read everything that I read and reconsider this statement.

That said the water heater analogy is perfect. Congress based on something already bought, paid for, voted for twice, and upheld in the Supreme Court, decided they wanted to shutdown the entire government.

yeah, I hate it when my slave masters bicker over things that don't have to do with ending slavery.

Not a government takeover. There has been and will be no government takeover.

Oh really? So I guess it's legal for you to buy LSD since government hasn't taken over. If they did takeover, they'd be controlling what you can and can't do, right? I guess you can ask a hospital to treat you with THC instead of chemo. That hospital would suffer no legal ramifications.

It cost 24 Billion. Shutting down the government, refusing a range of services, putting people out of work cost more money than had they kept all of that stuff open and all of those people employed.

I'm guessing you based that off of a recent study that examined the limited growth along with the shutdown. I've tried dissecting this thing, but it sort of leaves a lot of info out.

But basically it's because employees will still get their checks and a lot of what some organizations consider "drives the economy" has lowered in service providing. It's kind of fucked up, because this is under the idea that government isn't a parasite on the "economy," but I guess it also reflects a lot about the symbolic nature of the economy itself.

But yeah, mostly bullshit. I think it's cause the shutdown was just a word... it didn't really get shut down. The services that got cut were useless in the first place, and now they're back. It's not like the DEA stopped throwing people into cages.

So I take back my statement that it was revolutionary. It was more of a just a red herring.