Oh I'm sorry, I assumed that was a flippant jab, not your actual basis for argument. Geez. OK then. May I remind you I asked for evidence? Not someone waxing lyrical about how much better things were in the old days, with absolutely fuck all empirical comparison demonstrating that it even worked well back then, let alone proving it'd be more effective across the whole society now. I'm afraid someone vaguely claiming how "most" people were in these fraternaties and how it "reportedly" worked just fine isn't really an earnest attempt at informed debate, it's garden variety politics. Oh and the constant sarcy remarks about how the evil government ruined the good, wholesome, homegrown way of doing things was a nice touch too.

I mean seriously? That's actually solid evidence in your mind? A rhetorical tirade with fuck all substance or concrete data? The fuck is wrong with you?

It doesn't even relate directly to your original criticism, which was that government providing the only healthcare option (which again isn't even true) is the issue. But apparently government intervening at all is the issue now, and we should just, idk, be in the 20s again? I mean great, sure, let's do that. Because fraternities are not all that's different. The nature of the country and society has changed rather drastically, as has the economy even moreso, and the nature of medical care has changed fundamentally. Your model just gives small groups of people a GP basically, and has fuck all allowance for the vastly more diverse, specialised nature of care required now. But of course the actual logic of the situation is irrelevant, because that so called "argument" is the youtube equivalent of an old man sitting in a wingback chair talking about how good things were when he was a boy, all rhetoric and no substance. The fact that you're not embarrassed about posting it speaks volumes.