Honestly, I haven't heard the rationality factor applied in the case of healthcare so I won't try to answer you question but I don't want to duck it entirely because it's an interesting point. I know that children and the mentally disabled are handled specially in other cases for that reason. However, could you not apply the same argument to food (hungry people), shelter (exposed people), etc?

I think those who want socialized medicine have to justify aggression (initiating force through taxation, regulation, etc.) They also have to convince us that the masses (in the case of a democracy) can make better decisions than the individuals directly involved in each particular situation. They have to explain how people would be motivated to innovate in a system lacking competition and guaranteeing equality of outcome (this, is what I'm assuming is meant by "socialism", by the way).

I think these questions are of interest to us and the "hackers" of other disciplines... we want an environment where people are free to try new things. Mitigating the risk of failure should can also be managed by the market through insurance, which, getting back to the original point is privilege not a right because one has no "right" to the goods/services of another.

So, sure, it would be a great idea for everyone to contribute to a large pool for health insurance... but on a voluntary basis. Those who decline to or cannot pay will have to rely on charity if something happens. I can feel bad for them but I would not feel justified in putting my gun (or a tax collector's) to someone else's head to make them pay for it.

This is all assuming that both insurance and healthcare costs will both decrease dramatically when America rids itself of the heavy regulation of and handouts to the respective industries by going to either a completely socialist or capitalist system.

I'm all for a 'big pot' and that if you put money in, you can then get money out.

But at the same time, I think that people should HAVE to put into the pot, or you end up with a Tragedy of the Commons. No-one pays, because they don't like to think they'll get sick.

And then when they do, well, it's too late.

(I should note that I am biased towards socialized medicine, being an aforementioned sick person)

Rational actors are more of an assumption then a requirement. Used in conjunction with carefully defining terms, this a powerful way that economists hermetically seal their theories.

rational = utility maximising utility defined by consumer choice

Basically, they pay anything because it's worth anything.

All this really means is that preferences are transitive. I.e., if I prefer a puppy to a wii, and prefer a wii to cabbage, then I prefer a puppy to cabbage. That's not an unreasonable assumption.

It's an easy topology exercise to prove that if preferences are transitive, then a utility function exists (I think you may also need to assume a countable number of goods/services).

Economists don't assume that preferences are transitive between people. But within one person, I think they do.