Well then maybe we should agree to disagree on this. If I'm not making any sense; and you haven't already heard of my argument; then what is the point? My argument is very much supported and has been a major economic philosophy for longer then either of us has been alive. I cannot offer any more assistance then I already have; nor do I have the willpower to explain it when I don't really see a desire on your side to understand.

I'm asking for historical not philosophical support for your argument.

We will never agree; so in entering this debate I have already accepted that fact.

There is plenty of historical connections between centrally planned systems and failure. The issue that you are unable to make the connection between universal health care and central planning; therefore you are asking for a specific historical example of universal health care failing. Yet if I name centrally planned health care systems like medicare that have failed; you will just say that there is such and such a difference in one provision or another and therefore isn't a good example. I'm not interested in going down that road.

If you can't make the connection between central planning and universal health care; then I'm afraid that is where the discussion must end.

Doesn't central planning refer to the kind of economic policy adopted by the USSR? The essential difference between universal healthcare in countries like Canada and a Soviet-style "planned economy" is that government intervention in Canada is limited to only one sector of the economy. The failure of Soviet economic policy is not historical evidence of the inevitable economic collapse of countries like Canada, which are predominantly although not entirely capitalist.

Yes you are right; the difference between central planning in the USSR and central planning in the USA / Canada; is just a difference in magnitude.

USSR planned every industry; while the USA and Canada do it on an industry by industry basis. Some are completely centrally planned such as medicare / universal health care / utilities / school system. Some are mostly or partially centrally planned like banking, housing; etc. And some are comparably free of planning like technology to some extent; although even these are subject to various amounts of federal control and planning.

I would venture to say that there is no such thing as a completely free industry in the USA.

With that being said; I do not think any degree of central planning should be permissible. Central planning increases corruption in government because of the ability of politicians to receive kickbacks and/or bribery from companies to plan their industry to their benefit over their competitors.

If you removed this power from government; corruption would be drastically cut. If politicians cannot pick winners in the market; then market participants stop paying them for protection/favors.

The corruption argument is distinct from the argument that any degree of central planning leads to economic disaster.

But you are also assuming that there is no corruption in the private sector itself. A certain degree of government regulation might help prevent the most egregious kinds of private sector corruption, such as the kind of shady dealings which precipitated the '08 financial crisis.

Also central planning creates moral hazards like we are experiencing currently. If banks did not have protection from the government they would not have placed bets that put their companies at risk. Let's face it; these people knew they would be bailed out before they took those risks. This has been a topic on wall street for many years. Many firms consider themselves to big to fail; and therefore use it to their advantage against taxpayers etc.

The 2008 financial disaster was caused by the government subsidizing the purchases of real estate. This created a bubble which was bound to burst at some point. The government created Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to hide these bad assets from the eyes of the rating agencies, investors, and other watch dogs.

The corruption argument is distinct; but it is also additional evidence that central planning causes economic issues. Corruption is definitely linked to economic issues; 2008 being a good example.