One of the major challenges that I've faced over the last two years that I've been building Radical Personal Finance has been learning how to figure out what to talk about on my show. There's really nothing in my life nor in my past education that has prepared me for how to know that, how to know what topics to choose, how to know what roads to go down.

And some of the most baffling have been trying to figure out what's an appropriate and helpful and useful way to talk about things like politics. When do I go into them? When do I not? What's the right context for doing so? The challenge is oftentimes politics comes across as divisive.

It comes across as bringing a wedge because perhaps you and I believe differently. Perhaps our political systems are constructed on different presuppositions. And so it seems to me that often the best course of action is to avoid it. On the flip side, I know that I'm very interested in how other people think and especially when things are strange or questionable or new, I'm interested in how my friends think.

Whether I agree with them or not, I'm interested in knowing how they think. And as I sit here at three o'clock in the afternoon on Wednesday, November 9, 2016, the day after voting day, election day in the United States, wherein we learned that the president-elect of the United States is Donald Trump, a widely unexpected outcome, I find myself faced with that strange question of do I talk about what do I go into?

Should I go into political philosophy? How does that relate to finance? What should I do? Et cetera. I didn't intend to talk anymore about presidential politics. I've said my piece on the previous episode and that episode makes no difference. If you're listening to it and following the advice that I gave, it makes no difference what the outcome of the election was.

Did not matter. And I think it's generally best to construct plans that work no matter what. But the challenge has been that I was in the middle of a series on health insurance and planning just to take it in consistent chunks when all of a sudden my expectations for the outcome of the next at least four years politically were changed significantly.

And so some of the background material that I'd prepared on Obamacare and understanding of the history and understanding of the likely future, that's now significantly been brought into question. Just like many other aspects of society, unexpectedness. We find ourselves faced not with a political known entity but a politically unknown entity.

I guess person would be a better way to describe it. And that will lead to some very interesting experiences over the coming years. So I'm going to briefly touch on one aspect of the presidential election. I'm going to tie it directly into the next episode that I had already planned on doing which was my own opinion on the politics of Obamacare or my own opinion on the politics of mandated institutionalized government-led and organized health insurance programs because I think they're related.

I want to begin with a question of talking about understanding, understanding a political opponent, understanding somebody with whom we're in a negotiation, understanding a friend, understanding a loved one, understanding where somebody is coming from. I'm no political pundit. I'm not qualified to make commentary on the impact and the meaning of the US presidential election on our country or on the world.

And apparently no one else is either. But I do have an opinion as do most of us. And the only thing that I particularly care to talk about is with regard to the election because – and also because it ties perfectly into the next show that I want – this show that I'm creating now is – I think people misinterpret the reasons why people would cast votes in the way that they do.

And oftentimes where we should ascribe positive motives, we ascribe negative motives. I voted for neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton. I don't condemn you or applaud you for your vote. That's between you and God. You're the one who has to stand accountable for your vote. I could vote for neither of them and so I did not vote for either of them.

But I understand the emotions of those who have voted for either of those candidates. And what's interesting is since now the outcome is that Donald Trump was elected president, it seems as though the majority of commentators on the losing side jump immediately to the easy answer of ascribing negative intentions towards the voters.

For example, the standard common expression is, well, people who voted for Donald Trump are all racists and bigots and misogynists and homophobes and Islamophobes and just mean spirited people. Obviously, it's their hatred that has caused them to want to vote that way. Is that really the case though? See, I don't think it is.

I don't know, obviously, and I'm sure many people who have voted for Donald Trump voted with some of those motives. Of course, there are all types of people that walk among us. But I don't think it was that way. I understand the emotion and perhaps the psychology of the person who goes on and who voted for Donald Trump.

And one major emotion is the emotion of not being heard, not being heard, not being understood. See, I hold many of the political opinions that are, well, I guess, how do I put this accurately? I hold many unpopular political opinions. And often people ascribe it immediately towards a negative emotion instead of saying, well, wait a second, why do you think the way you do?

And that's going to come out as we talk about Obamacare. I am emphatically opposed to the, I'm emphatically opposed and I was emphatically opposed, I continue to be emphatically opposed towards Obamacare, towards the Affordable Care Act, towards any kind of government organized universal health insurance system. I am emphatically opposed and now I expect that I will have to continue to be emphatically opposed to the next version, whatever that is.

And I think that's a very important point. I think that's a very important point. I think that's a very important point. And I think that's a very important point. And I think that's a very important point. And I think that's a very important point. And I think that's a very important point.

And I think that's a very important point. And I think that's a very important point. And I think that's a very important point. And I think that's a very important point. And I think that's a very important point. And I think that's a very important point. And so therefore I'm going to discount what he thinks or what he believes.

Or you can go on and ask the next question. "Joshua, why do you have that opinion?" If you can answer the "why" question when you disagree with somebody, it's very possible that you may be able to come up with an outcome or a solution to the problem that meets the concerns of their "why" and the concerns of your "why." Now, this is not always possible.

There are things that are fundamentally diametrically opposed. And so you can't approach it like a Pollyanna. Yes, you should look for negotiations that are win-win, or you should choose no deal. But many times you come to no deal. We just can't come to a meeting of the minds. But if we would approach differences of opinion with a little bit more patience, a little bit more humility, and really seek to understand, before we seek to be understood, I think we can come up with better solutions.

And Obamacare is a perfect illustration of this. And I see the reflection of it in the result of the election yesterday. See, Obamacare was ramroded through Congress. It was an incredible way that it actually passed. I was reminded a few weeks ago with the scandal relating to the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton that it was only based upon the fact that Senator Ted Stevens from Alaska had lost his election due to being indicted for crimes that he was later exonerated from before his election, a few weeks before his election, that he lost his seat in Alaska.

And that flipped the balance of power in the Senate over to Democratic control. And it was that balance of power that allowed the legislation that later became the Affordable Care Act, after this very strange, very end-of-the-year, very tortured process of reconciliation of the bills, was ramroded through. It was some of these little twists and turns that allowed the legislation to become law.

But the way the debate was conducted was based upon the same way that the Donald Trump-Hillary Clinton debate has been conducted. The questioning of motives instead of trying to understand the reasons. See, it's a problem. The rising cost of health insurance was a problem, and it continues to be a problem.

Both sides of the debate at the inception of this legislation acknowledged that. The question was how do we solve the problem? Unfortunately, my memory, perhaps your memory is different, this is just my personal memory, my memory is that that problem was argued based upon questioning the motives and intent of the opposing party, rather than seeking to find a consensus solution.

See, there's a difference between compromise and consensus. My philosophy is never, ever, ever compromise. In the sense of don't compromise on something if it's important. You don't win through compromise. Never compromise with evil. Never compromise with injustice. Do not compromise. Now of course, there are exceptions to that, you know I'm a realistic person, but in general we shouldn't seek compromise.

You don't say, well, I'd like to have, what example to use, you could put a bucket of hot water in one bucket and cold water in the other bucket, compromise is putting a foot in each bucket. That doesn't work. You're miserable. Don't seek to compromise, seek for consensus. And consensus is much harder than compromise.

Consensus is where you understand what the motivations of the people involved are, and you seek to find a solution that's a win-win for both, for all. Not to compromise on things that are important to people, but to seek to find a solution that meets all of the needs of the parties involved.

So back to Obamacare, there was no compromise that was sought. The political argument that passed was, excuse me, that was handled was, in that case it was Democrats and Republicans, so Democrats said, well, we love people and we don't want people to die in the street and we want them to be able to afford to have health insurance, and Republicans said, well, wait a second, we've got problems, and Democrats said, well, you just hate people, basically.

That wasn't the case. And it wasn't the case anymore than Donald Trump supporters all went to the poll and said, you know what, I'm racist, or you know what, I'm a bigot, or you know what, I'm a homophobe, or you know what, I'm an Islamophobe. That's not the case.

The point is, was at that time, that when you ramrod something down somebody's throat, as Obamacare was through the political system, people don't like that very much. And I think that's been the same one of the trends that's continued for the last eight years, which resulted in the widely unexpected election results of last night.

So, what could we actually practically do to possibly change that? Well, remember, you and I have no control over the vast majority of people out there. You and I only control ourselves. So, let's start with ourselves. And here are a couple of things that I am learning, have learned, and am learning, because I still struggle with knowing how to properly articulate these things.

Number one, humility. Humility. Easier said than done. It's easy to acknowledge. For some people, it's easy to acknowledge humility as a virtue. For those who would seek to follow the teachings of the Bible, it would be easy to acknowledge humility as a virtue. It's a very clear, specific instruction and virtue that is taught and proclaimed in the words of Scripture.

It's very different, though, to actually put it into practice. And if I were going to talk about what has been my biggest moral failings and shortcomings over the past, say, decade of my life, I would say, generally, it would come down to a question of arrogance versus humility. It's been far too easy for me to choose the approach of arrogance rather than the approach of humility.

Humility has a wonderful effect. Humility has a way of disarming somebody else. And it has a way of opening them up to your words, to your viewpoint. A few moments ago, before starting to record this show, I watched President Obama's speech that he gave today, November 9, that he gave after the--there at the White House, after the results of the election have now been known.

And what was remarkable to me was the tone of humility that he took and how that ingratiated him to me. Over the last eight years, I've had a very difficult time, much of the time, watching President Obama speak. He is a fantastic public speaker. In 2008--2007, excuse me, 2006, 2007, I was actually in--Democrats were Boston.

I was in Boston on the floor of the--I think it was the Fleet Center in Boston. I was on the floor of the Fleet Center in Boston, Massachusetts during the 2008 election cycle at the Democratic National Convention. And that was the speech--no, excuse me, this would have been 2004, forgive me.

Anyway, the point is the speech at which he spoke at the DNC when he was still a senator--he was elected in 2008--2004. In 2004, Boston, Democratic National Convention, he gave a speech at the Democratic National Convention that was probably the most discussed speech from that convention. And what was interesting was at that time I was working for a company and I was engaged as basically an assistant to somebody--a salesperson who was involved in political sales.

And earlier that day I had attended a speech with President--excuse me, it was Politician Obama there in a little place in Boston. It was a very small crowd, a couple hundred people. And I wound up--I really enjoyed it. I spent quite a while talking to his campaign manager, just kind of standing backstage talking to him, watching him speak.

So he had come onto my radar screen. I had previously been unaware of who he was. And then that night I was on the floor, very front of the convention center at the Democratic National Convention watching him give his speech. And I remember just thinking to myself, "Wow, this guy is incredible.

This guy is a rock star." And as I watched him over the next four years transition and become to a place of political prominence and political power, I was just struck by how effective he was as a speaker. But over the last eight years of his presidency, I have had consistently again and again and again a very difficult time watching him speak.

I've generally found that in order for me to not disrupt my own emotional equilibrium, it's better for me to read a transcript than to actually watch him speak. Because of a lot of the tone that he often would take, at least how it seemed to me. But today, as I watch him speak, I've enjoyed and appreciated it.

I found my opinion of him just going right up. And I thought, "Well, that's a classy way to handle it." Two weeks ago, I couldn't stand the stuff he was saying when I'd watch him pass through the late night shows and whatnot because of his arrogance. But today, he expressed humility and all of a sudden my opinion of him changed.

So, long-winded way to say that humility has a way of changing things, has a way of changing how we're perceived. And we can express that consistently toward another person. It starts with saying, "I may not know the answer." So, consider that. Next, the other thing that's important is to start by believing the best.

The Bible teaches in Paul's letter to the Corinthians that love believes the best. Love always believes the best. And I have found this to be one of the most difficult things to practice, but one of the most powerful things to practice. That if you are willing to truly and sincerely love another person, begin by believing the best about them.

Begin not by questioning their motives, but by believing that their motives are pure and are honorable and are true. Now, they may not be, but you're still going to be better served by believing that. And it's going to lead to a greater likelihood of actually being able to interact with somebody.

And to listen to them and to have them listen to and hear you. And when we come to a place of disagreement, we need to start by recognizing that it's probably not that they hate the… that people who vote for Trump all hate black people or hate, you know, whatever.

Just go down the list. It's probably best to believe the best about them and say, "Why did they vote the way that they do?" Because the majority of Trump supporters that I know personally do not feel that way. I know many Trump supporters. They don't hate people. There's something else going on.

Same thing when it comes to a political thing with a different politician. Start by believing the best. So, when we come to health care, we need to start by recognizing that compassion is probably what both sides in a debate feel. They feel compassion. And they're trying… they see a problem that they want to help.

And they're trying to say, "What is the compassionate thing to do in this particular situation?" So, remember, I'm opposed to the Obamacare legislation. I will probably, whatever, from any indication at the moment, I'll probably be opposed to any legislation that Donald Trump presents. And you may have the opposite view, but recognize this.

I have compassion on people who are hurting. And so do you. If you believe the opposite, recognize that you have compassion and I have compassion. Let's start from a place of believing the best about one another. Now, we agree, you and I, we agree that people who are sick need care.

We agree that it is good to help people who are sick, people who are struggling receive quality medical care. We agree that it's good to help so that when somebody is struggling with a physical sickness, that they don't add the difficulty of financial problems on top of their medical problems.

Significant medical bills can be utterly devastating, utterly devastating to somebody's finances. So, we both want to see a solution held for those people. For somebody like me, this is an incredibly important part of my life. And I think it should be an incredibly important part of your life as well to help people who are sick and who are hurting.

For me, it comes from a religious presupposition. One thing that's important, very important, is that a major component of the ministry of Jesus when he was on this earth was to heal the sick. And a major command to his disciples was to heal the sick. There's an account that's recorded in scriptures that appears in the Gospel of Matthew and also in the Gospel of Luke, where Jesus sends out 70 of his disciples and his specific commands to them is to go and to proclaim as you go, saying, "The kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out demons." In the other account of this story in Luke, the disciples are instructed, "Whenever you enter a town and they receive you, eat what is set before you, heal the sick in it and say to them, 'The kingdom of God has come near to you.'" And so, this is a religious motivation for me and a specific command from Jesus to somebody like me.

And it's common to many people. That's why historically throughout society you see that Christians have often had an important focus on helping the sick, helping the needy as well. We talk about philanthropy and giving another day. So, that's why if you look around just the hospitals in your town, there's a good chance that many of the hospitals in your town will have some kind of religious connection to their name.

They'll come from different religious backgrounds. They'll have what some might be a saint, some might be something different depending on the particular religious flavor of denomination that's there. But there is a significant, significant emphasis on this for people. So, it might at first blush when you hear somebody like me say I'm opposed to Obamacare.

That can be painted as saying, "Well, you don't care about the sick." My point in going through some of these details is to say that no, caring for the sick is something very important. The question is not whether caring for the sick is important. The question is who should be caring for the sick.

And is that the appropriate role of government? See, in life there are different areas of jurisdiction. There are different areas of responsibility. And if you try to transition the role of one area of responsibility over to another, you wind up with a problem. Here would be an example. It's important for me to love my wife.

That's important. It's actually a specific command of scripture to somebody like me who believes in the authority of the Bible. I'm commanded to love my wife. Now, if you want me to love my wife, is it appropriate for you to encourage me to love my wife? Absolutely. Is it appropriate for you to do anything you can to help me love my wife?

Yes. But is it appropriate for you to come and step into my life and start loving my wife? It's a different question. Now, the metaphor breaks down. All metaphors do. Just the point is to say that there are some things that can only be carried out by the right person.

If you take the right institution and you put the wrong responsibility on it, you wind up with a disaster. So if you take the institution of the family and you place the responsibilities of civil government under the family, you wind up with a disaster. If you take the responsibility of the church and you put the responsibility to the government onto that, you wind up with a problem.

So jurisdictions need to be kept separate. So this is where we run into the conflict. It's not that I don't care about people. It's not that I don't care about the sick. I have two fundamental problems with any kind of enforced, socialized is the best word for it in terms of universal, comprehensive, forced, government-run system of health insurance.

There are many practical things we could talk about. I might touch on a couple of those in a minute. But there are two major things that – problems that I have. Number one is the use of force and coercion. It doesn't matter how positive the action is. If it's forced, it's coercion and it loses its positive effect.

There is a place, in my opinion, there is a place for the use of force. And there is a place for the use of force by somebody like the institution of government and its representatives. But it's not from a positive perspective. It's only in a very limited restraining force.

So example. I think it's good for you to give to your neighbor when your neighbor loses his job and to go over and help him. Give him some money so that he can make his rent payment. Take over cutting his grass for him. Put some gas in his car.

Take some food over. Give him some cash. Help him out. I think those things are important. But now all of a sudden, what if I come to your front door with a gun and start forcing you to give him money? And I start forcing you to go and to mow his lawn.

Well, I've crossed over the moral boundary of the use of force. And what was encouragement has now become theft. What was a good action, me encouraging you to give to your neighbor in his time of need, has now become theft. Me coming to your house with a gun and forcing you to give to your neighbor.

So no matter how much I want you to give to your neighbor, and I'd really much very much do, I cannot cross that line of coercion. I cannot cross that line of force because then, me, I would be in violation of theft. God's commandment, don't steal. It doesn't matter how many particular people are between you and me.

It doesn't matter how good the thing is that I want you to do. It doesn't matter how many, again, how many people there are, how distanced, or whether you're in Florida and I'm in Maine. The point is, I cannot force you to do what I want you to do just because I think you should do it.

I don't have authority over you, and I cannot come and force that. Well, any kind of forced, universal system of medical insurance breaks that law, breaks that boundary. It takes something that is good, helping somebody who is in need, and it turns it into something that is not good because it requires coercion, requires force.

Doesn't matter what I want you to do. I am not permitted to use force to force you to do something. If I do, it invalidates the upright or moral nature, morally positive nature of the action that I'm encouraging. It's no longer done from a free and open heart. It's no longer done from a heart of gratitude.

Now, the second major complaint that I have against any kind of system of force is oftentimes, because there's a system of force, the things that are forced upon you or upon me might be things that are morally repugnant to you or to me. Back to my neighbor example. If you observe that your neighbor is a hardworking man who works hard to provide for his family, he's very, very diligent, and there's been an unfortunate accident.

He had a car accident. Now, he's not able to go and labor at his job that requires him to work at the mill. Now, all of a sudden, your heart will probably be very positively inclined towards giving him money. You will say, "This man is a worthy man. He works hard.

He's down on a bad luck, and you'll go over and you'll mow his grass and you'll buy groceries and you'll give him spending money and you'll put gas in his car and you'll make his mortgage payment to help him get back on his feet," as you should. But what if that man is not an industrious man?

What if he's lazy? What if he's a lie about? What if he's on drugs? What if you see that every dollar that he has is being used towards a destructive influence, and he takes every dollar that you give him, he goes out, he buys alcohol and drugs, he comes home, and he beats his wife, he beats his children, he abuses his neighbors, and he's destroying his property?

Is it morally right for me to force you to give him money because he's out of work? What if his actions, or excuse me, what if his situation is the natural consequence of his choices? And what if he's made no attempt whatsoever to change those choices? Should you not consider where he is before you give him money?

Now, just simply me describing the scenario of the state that he's in doesn't actually solve the problem of whether you should give him money or whether you shouldn't give him money. All of those things may be true, and perhaps the wisest course of action for you is to do anything you can to help his wife and his children, to protect them, to provide for them.

Perhaps the right course of action for you to do is to give him money because it'll find him humbled and you're close enough to see what's right. Perhaps the right thing for you to do is to do nothing and to wait until he's fully reaped the consequences of his actions and he's ready to change.

See, you can discern those things when you're working with your neighbor. If you have the voluntary choice to give him money or to not give him money, you can discern in that situation what is the best course of action, how to truly show your compassion to him and to help him.

And you can know if compassion means to give him money or if compassion means to stop giving him money so that you're not enabling his bad behavior. But I can't know that if I'm not his neighbor and I'm not your neighbor. All I can do is look on and say, "Don't you see the dude's out of work?

Don't you see that he's going hungry?" And you say, "But wait, Joshua, hold on, hold on, hold on. Yes, he's going hungry, but this is the natural consequence, and when he's hungry enough, he'll say, 'I've got to make a change.'" Now, take it over to health insurance. The problem with coercion is not only the fact that force and coercion is used, but that force and coercion can be used to do things and to force people to do things that you or I might find morally reprehensible.

It's hard to know what those things are until you get into a specific situation. They can be things that are religiously charged. I'll go there in a moment with things that oftentimes divide people. Or they can be things that are just simple and apparent common sense. For example, somebody abuses drugs.

Should you continue to provide medical care for that person when they continue to abuse drugs and use drugs, which is leading to their exact problem and they show no desire or no desire to change? That's a hard question. What is compassion in this situation? It's a hard question. Now, think about some of the battles that have been fought in the United States in the court system regarding some of the significant issues that have been raised by the Affordable Care Act and Obamacare.

And you'll start to see how the problem with the use of force is that now you've recognized that because you can coerce other people to do something, you now have the opportunity to use your power and remake the world in your image. And you can use the threat of violence through your surrogates to do that.

So, how does this take the place? Well, think about one of the most important. One of the most important aspects of Obamacare, of the Affordable Care Act, was universal, freely available, contraception, methods of contraception that are available and all methods of contraception needed to be covered, period. Now, let's start with believing the best about other people.

Let's start with recognizing that people are moving from a place of compassion. So, what are the two kind of polar opposite sides on this? Number one is those who believe that children are a great burden. And one of the greatest injustices that has been inflicted upon people, especially upon women, which has led to the systematic subjugation of women, is that women have to bear children.

And so, by giving women control over their ability to reproduce children or reproduce based upon sexual activity or not reproduce based upon sexual activity, we are empowering people to freedom. That's the one side. If you're not familiar with that side of the debate, I encourage you, please carefully look at it and understand that those who hold that opinion are beginning from a place of what they believe is compassion.

What's the flip side? The flip side is and comes from a belief that children are one of the greatest blessings of life and that they are worth far more than almost anything else because they're life. And when sexual activity is enjoyed in its proper context, one of the natural blessings that comes from that is children.

Now, that's the very hardcore view that doesn't make a distinction between methods of contraception. Others would go and say, "Well, certain methods of contraception take life. Some block life from being created and some destroy life. And so thus, because life scientifically becomes a new life at the moment of conception, whether that's a religious belief or a scientific belief is immaterial.

They're both provable. Then to take that life is to murder another person. And so thus, we're taking one of the biggest blessings, one of the most beautiful things, and we're transforming it into one of the worst things, the murder of another person. Now, in general, although this is not the case historically, there was a battle that was fought generally today, trying to keep things into current context.

In general, people aren't necessarily seeking to restrict the availability of contraception, but those who hold that far extreme don't want the opposing person's belief to be imposed upon them, that this has to be provided because they do not want to participate in it. What do you think either of those beliefs?

Let me take the very conservative belief. What do you think that belief holds any water whatsoever? Can you at least recognize that the person who holds that belief has some support for their opinion? You may not find it to be convincing support, but they at least have some evidence and support for it and that they hold it and that it's very, very important to them.

And can you understand how damaging it would be for you to show up with a gun, point that gun to their side of their head through the surrogates, and say, "If you do not pay for this thing that you find morally reprehensible, we're going to throw you in jail because you didn't pay your taxes." Now, I'm using – I don't want to lose anybody to my extreme examples.

I use the example of showing up with a gun because that's effectively what happens. I will – in a future show, I will demonstrate to you that at the moment under current tax law, it's my understanding that if you do not choose to pay – to buy health insurance or to buy into the Affordable Care Act through the online health exchanges and if you do not pay the penalty because you don't have health insurance, you don't pay the penalty, the IRS will not literally come after you with a gun.

So I recognize that. I'm using that to demonstrate that it's probable. And here's what – here's what I would say. If Hillary Clinton had been elected, who knows what will happen with Donald Trump. I don't know a prediction on this one. But if Hillary Clinton had been elected and if people systematically had stood up and said, "You know what?

I'm not going to participate," that law would be changed and all of a sudden now, the prisons would be opened for those who are conscientious of projectors. My only point here is to demonstrate that there are two deeply held beliefs and there are variations in between. Now, with you as a thinking person, if you sat down with that and you started from the presupposition of compassion, recognizing that both sides see a wrong, an injustice that they're seeking to right and they're concerned about that and you believe the best about both sides, could you sit down and could you come up as a mediator?

Could you come up with a solution that might possibly lead to both sides having their concerns addressed while also keeping them free? I challenge you with that mental exercise. If you're missing a journaling prompt for your daily journaling, take that one tomorrow and say, "How could I bring these two sides together and what kind of solution could I come up with where each side could have their problems met, believing the best about both sides, where each side could have their problems met without forcing something that is morally reprehensible onto them?" I forgot to say, one of the things I saw this morning about Donald Trump, Donald Trump was alleged, what was that, a year or two ago, Donald Trump's going to take away all my birth control.

So it's still an argument, right? I guess it's related to the Affordable Care Act. I don't even remember the statement that was related to that. Now, we could go through a list of statements. It seems to be these are the common arguments that we're having in our culture about common medical things.

For example, it's my understanding that Colorado has now joined the very small list of states that have approved euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide. I have not yet reviewed the information to understand what was actually accomplished with that. I'm on the side that finds the acceptance of suicide, physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia, I find that to be of the utmost morally reprehensible things to participate in.

So I'm on that side. And the reason is based upon a compassion for the person, that no person should be subjected to that. And the worst thing that somebody could do is to step in and say, "I'm going to end my life." But I also recognize that the opposing side is moving from a place of compassion as they see it or as potentially you see it.

I'm fully aware of that. I'm very up to date on the arguments. I'm very up to date on it. And I watch it very carefully around the world. I don't, if you hold that legalized suicide, especially in case of terminal illness, which is where it always starts, legalized suicide has its place.

I understand your arguments. I understand that you see that as the compassionate thing. But now all of a sudden we have a problem. In Colorado, should I finance your suicide? Can you force me to do that? I don't know how these things will work out in our time. But where we're going is there's changes.

And not all of these things are here today, but this is the fundamental problem with approaching something with a government solution and with the use of force. Now, that doesn't, just because we say, "Okay, we're going to back off," doesn't make it easy. Should suicide be illegal? That's a big question, just because I don't force you to pay for it.

I don't have any easy answers to these things. My point is to say that this is one of the reasons why I'm opposed to the use of these mandated comprehensive systems of insurance. Let's tackle another difficult one, abortion. Let's start by recognizing that if there were two extreme sides on the abortion debate, recognize that both people are moving from a place of compassion.

Those who are pro-life, I'm going to use the pro-life and pro-choice terminology for a moment. I'm a part of neither. Those who are pro-life say – well, sorry. Those who are pro-choice are beginning from a place of compassion and they're saying that mothers should not be forced to suffer based upon their children.

And that the mother should not have somebody else decide what she can do with her own body. So therefore, the compassionate thing to do is to protect the mother's rights at all cost. Those who are – compassion, start by believing the best. Those who are arguing in favor of the life of the baby, pro-life.

The reason I say I'm not pro-life, I'm not pro-life because I'm an abolitionist. I desire to abolish human abortion and see it done in my lifetime. Research the abolitionist perspective as compared to pro-life if you're interested in that debate. I don't want to go there. It's not germane to the topic right now.

Pro-life. Those who are in favor of the pro-life perspective, look at it and say, "What about the baby? Who's going to speak up for the baby? What about the baby's rights? Who's going to have compassion on the baby?" Now, obviously, that's a difficult and contentious debate. But now, let's not look backward to Obamacare and discuss whether or not taxpayer funding for abortion was established and expanded through Obamacare.

It was not directly. There are some indirect ways that you could make the argument. But let's go forward. Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton were both avowedly in favor of repealing the Helms Amendment and the Hyde Amendment, which block the use of government funds for the use of abortion. That means that I, as an abolitionist, would be faced with this problem.

My taxes are now going to what I believe – you don't have to believe it – towards what I believe is the premeditated murder of a human being. What do I do? And here I'm faced with a moral dilemma. In terms of importance, I would rather go and sit in prison and rot in prison for the rest of my life than participate in the premeditated murder of another human being.

That's how important it is to me. I will not participate in the culture of death. But I'm also faced with the problem that the Bible requires me to pay my taxes. I cannot find any basis to escape the requirement to pay my taxes. I've looked for it. I can't find it.

I've interviewed tax protesters on the show, and for the last year as I've watched the debate, I've wondered to myself, "Would I be forced to become a tax protester if the Helms and Hyde Amendments are repealed?" I can't find any way to do it, at least not in the sense of not paying the taxes.

But I don't know if that will change in the future. I'm just telling you where I'm at today. I'm thankful that I don't – we'll see. I'm thankful that today I don't have to make that decision. But I hope that if you're listening to this, you know me a little bit.

I hope that you could see the moral dilemma that that puts me into. What do I choose? Do I choose to participate in what I believe? Give me the benefit of the doubt. Give me the benefit of thinking that I'm compassionate. I care about the mother and about the baby.

But should I be forced by the power of the threat of violence to provide money that is going to be used for the premeditated murder of a human being? Can you see the dilemma that would put me into? And I will acknowledge the dilemma that if you oppose me on that position, I acknowledge the dilemma it puts on you.

I acknowledge that you are moving from what you view as compassion. Now, challenge. Could you find a way and can you come up with a way to figure out how to help both of us? If you're an intelligent person, I give you that challenge. One of the most difficult, contentious things that we face in our society today.

Tearing us apart causes us to – it's very, very difficult. I have some ideas. I have some solutions. But acknowledge that it's difficult. Or take the current debate over transgenderism, right? Current debate. Question. Should I be able to force you or should you be able to force me to pay money for gender transition treatment?

For men and women who are experiencing gender dysphoria and who feel that their internal picture of themselves does not match their biological sex. Should we be forced to do that? Now, let's start with compassion. Recognize both sides are moving from a place of compassion. What they perceive to be is compassion.

Number one, those who are moving from the perspective of yes, absolutely, are starting with the saying, with perceiving. Those who are experiencing gender dysphoria are experiencing a profoundly difficult psychological burden. And there are things that they believe, those who hold to this position, they believe will help that person to alleviate that psychological burden.

And so thus, the compassionate thing to do is to help somebody, to help them have their body match how they perceive themselves on the inside. That's a compassionate perspective, is it not? Now, number two. What about those on the other side? I'm on the other side. I've researched extensively gender dysphoria starting a number of years ago when my uncle, the person after whom I'm named and the man with whom I share a birthday, underwent the process of gender transition.

One of the most challenging things. I was not up to speed on it beforehand. He was always a cross-dresser. He always dressed like a woman. But I was not aware of all of the details of the psychological challenges and all of that until I started digging into it. Now, recognize that those who hold this perspective also recognize the power of gender dysphoria.

But the question is, what's the solution? When those who hold to this other perspective look at it and say, "Oh, wait a second. Let's look at the rates of depression. Let's look at the rates of suicide. Let's look at the problems. And are there other solutions that are not quite this?

And is this really the best move?" Can you recognize that both come from a place of compassion? Now, that's probably enough. If I have not angered you by now, it's just I can't imagine how I didn't. Because I've just walked through half a dozen of the most contentious, angry issues that happen in our society.

But to tie this show up, relate it to health insurance and relate it to the political debate. Number one, you and I, if we sit down and we believe the best about one another and we start by assuming good motives, you and I can have a reasonable discussion with one another.

And we can seek to say, "Let me understand your side. Let me understand what you're trying to accomplish." For example, "Joshua, are you trying to ban this certain thing? Are you trying to say that this should not be permitted or are you just saying you don't want to pay for this?" Those are two different things.

Some of those issues it would be one and some of those issues it would be the other. Those are two very different things. We may not be able to come up with a solution, but you and I can have a reasonable conversation if we begin on that basis and if we start talking about it.

And it's my job to spend a lot of time thinking about what you believe and understanding and trying to think through your presuppositions, trying to look at the world through your eyes. And if you desire to engage with me, I encourage you to try to look at the world through my eyes.

We might come up with some better solutions. Now, unfortunately, that doesn't seem to happen. By the way, I want to emphasize, we may not come up with better solutions, but I think in the majority of these cases we probably can. But it doesn't help if I accuse you of evil motives and it doesn't help if you accuse me of the same.

What we wind up with in that situation is the 2016 presidential election. And we wind up with a dramatic shift to the left for the last eight years and the use of force on other people to enforce an ideological agenda. And then we wind up with a boomerang or a swing of the pendulum to the far right.

And God knows what we'll face over the next four or eight years. You and I certainly don't. Only time will tell. When we bring that and apply it over to health insurance, I think we can mitigate a lot of this by starting with saying, "Let's remove coercion from our arsenal." From our armory, excuse me.

Let's remove coercion from our tool belt. Let's start by not trying to force each other to do the things that we think one another should do, the proactive things. Again, I can't go there to destroy the show. There is a time where you step up and use force and you stop somebody from committing evil.

But let's start with just saying, "Let me not come to you and put a gun to your head and say, 'You need to go and feed your neighbor.' I'm going to allow you to do that, and my hope is that you'll allow me to do that." And we can avoid a dramatic amount of the conflict.

Unfortunately, the Affordable Care Act and Obamacare was not brought into power on that basis. But if you're interested in why I oppose it, those are the two biggest things to me. Coercion takes what can be a moral good, turns it into a moral evil. And number two, the things that are coerced, the one who has power gets to decide that.

And you and I may not like that if the other is in control. So, there are many other practical things. You have the problem of subsidies and how subsidies are always ratcheted up. That's why I shouldn't make political predictions. I don't see anybody who's serious about simply repealing Obamacare.

That would be tremendously valuable to me. I see people who say, "I just want Obamacare to be reshaped how I want to do it so that I can wield the force." Not so good. There are tremendous problems when other people are paying for things, when you wind up with inefficient systems.

You wind up with the problems of bureaucracy. Who decides what's right and wrong? How does that process get trundled along? That's where if you don't pay attention to the euthanasia debate, you should. Because one of the most troubling things out of Europe is the ages and the reasons for which physician-assisted suicide is now commonplace.

The children who are being accepted. If you don't pay attention to some of these issues and recognize the challenges of these things, you should. These are deeply difficult things. But anyway, there's tons of those that we could go into. But I'm going to wrap it up with this. I oppose Obamacare.

I would love to see it repealed. I don't want to see it replaced. And I am in favor of any kind of voluntary system that is not coercive in nature and allows people to choose for themselves what they are in favor of. That doesn't solve all the problems, but that solves a lot of the problems.

Time will tell what happens in the United States of America. Those of you who have other systems in other countries, it's very, very challenging. Just because something is not rationed based on price doesn't mean that it's not rationed. You can either solve supply and demand imbalance on pricing or you can solve it sometimes on waiting in line, which is generally the case.

But that's a debate that's, I guess, not relevant to the election. The more important thing I just want to share with you is if you have a desire of changing, changing the tone of political debate, recognize that you're not going to do it with them out there. It's not going to happen fighting with people on Facebook like you and I like to do.

It's going to happen with starting to believe the best about other people. And I'm going to do my best to do that more. I have been remiss in doing that. I've often ascribed evil intentions to people who either didn't have them or didn't recognize that they have them. And that's not a good place to start.

So I apologize. If I've done that to you, if I've mischaracterized you or mischaracterized your position, please forgive me. I will do my best to do that. I regret some things I've said. I regret some things I've said on this microphone and I do apologize for those things. I want to begin by believing the best about you.

I want to begin from that place. And let's talk with one another about some of these difficult issues. I'll do my best within the context of radical personal finance to share one side and I'll do it passionately. I'll do it as thoughtfully as I'm able to do it. I'm happy to read your responses.

I'm happy to facilitate conversations of you and me and other listeners as much as is able. And I encourage you to go out and use the power of media. And if you have a different perspective and you'd like someone else to be understood, then go ahead and create something.

Because often what you find is that if you want to understand a political opponent, it's good to go and consume their media instead of to talk with them. There are some people who I can sit and talk with and we can talk about subjects that we disagree on and we can part as friends.

But many people connect their opinions with their self-worth. And if I attack an opinion or an ideology or we have a good argument, all of a sudden they go away feeling belittled. So you have to be very careful when arguing with people. But media is very helpful and we live in a tremendous new world.

I like to go and listen to Sam Harris. Sam Harris is a famous atheist. His podcast. And I like to challenge myself and say, "Okay, Joshua. Here's somebody that you think differently of. Try to look at the world through Sam's eyes." And I encourage you, if you feel that there is an opinion or a perspective that's not being seen, go ahead and start working on something.

Whether that's you write it out in a thoughtful message or a thoughtful note and you publish it on your Facebook profile or you write it on a blog or you create a podcast or whatever, go for it. And hopefully, together, we'll continue to make progress. It's not the politicians who are going to do that.

I don't see any evidence that -- who knows? There I go ascribing. You get the point. Have a great day, radicals.