US health insurance is garbage specifically because it's tied to employers and employers have strong tax incentives to use insanely inefficient low-deductible plans that both destroy price sensitivity and involve the insurance bureaucracy in small time medical procedures.

> There's not a single person on the planet who derives benefits from navigating the trade-offs of byzantine insurance plans

The cost difference between different insurance plans is thousands of dollars a year. It's one of the most financially impactful choices most individuals can make. Meanwhile if you don't want to make it then... don't? The government could easily recommend a specific plan and anybody who doesn't want to spend a few hours choosing for themselves a thing that could impact them to the tune of $100,000 over their lifetime could just choose that one and be done.

> school choice is a good way to speed up social and racial segregation

Sending kids to schools based on racially segregated school districts is the status quo. You're saying giving those parents the option to send their kids to the same school as the white kids is going to increase segregation? How is that supposed to work?

> enabling quasi fraudulent religious schools that teach people nonsense.

Those "schools" already exist. If they're dangerous enough to deny parents the right to use what is really their own tax money to send their kids to then they're dangerous enough to shut down entirely, right?

Unless you run into some questions of free speech and religious freedom doing that, but then I'm not sure how you were expecting to avoid them to begin with when using "we need to deny them the ability to do that" as an argument.

> I moved from Germany to the UK years ago, and I've never enjoyed anything more than the NHS because I literally do not have to waste a minute of my life on health insurance any more. I pay X amount of taxes, I go to the doctor, I get treated, I go home.

So buy a low deductible insurance plan that covers everything. It costs more than making individual choices, if you don't like to do that. But the cost comes either way -- either you pay with time or you pay with money.

(The status quo in the US is ridiculously broken because you pay with time but then it's still costs a ton of money for multiple independent reasons. Nobody thinks the status quo in the US is a good idea.)

With school choice, parents do incredible amounts of research, and can send their kids to excellent schools wherever they live, or however bad their local school boards are. And yes, ALL parents invest in their kids' success, your (not OP's but generic reader's) stereotypes against minorities aside. It's a relatively efficient market. It benefits from choice + competition, with just transparency regulations (choice schools should be subject to FERPA, PPRA, public records laws, allow parent visits, etc.), and possibly governance regulations (not-for-profit school choice works best).

Medical choice comes up when I'm hit by a car. I don't have time to do research then, and it's the definition of an inefficient market. I go with whoever shows up, and worry about the bankrupting bills and/or malpractice lawsuits later.

Dumping private insurance 100% makes sense. It's pure overhead. It's a place conservatives deny science and evidence.

Providing school choice 100% make sense too. It makes for better schools. It's a place liberals deny science and evidence.

A dumb rich person won't get nearly as much benefit as a smart poor person

Categorically false. Generic reader here, and I grew up in an abusive home with parents that could literally not have given two shits about my future, success or emotional well-being. For you to assert that they ALL do this is either an incredibly sheltered or willfully ignorant point of view.