I think our difference in opinion comes down to your higher tolerance for coercion.

Do you really? I hope not.

I believe our difference lies in our regard for consistency of social economic theory. IMO one of history's most repeated lessons is that the more that a society strives for (or is made to strive for) a logically consistent social economic approach, whatever the approach, the worse off those people are, and the longer that they strive to those ends, the greater the damage done. The reason being, is that application of theory on one level invariably leads to contradictions upon another. Here, for example, we have a medical system where all patients, able to pay or not, must be treated by law. Thus the costs incurred by those that cannot or do not pay, are shouldered by those that do, by law. If this proportion of those that do not pay grows substantial for some reason (perhaps costs outpace earnings), then you have a system that legislates a significant burden upon a specific population that arose out of one that sought to avoid such a development.

The examples for these kinds of evolution are plentiful, and dog every earnest implementation of a preferred socio-economic theory. It is no coincidence that every effort to enact communist policies leads to graft. Philosophers and college students should spend their time thinking about the merits of socio-economic theories, but policy makers should spend little, because the conclusions that such efforts produce have relatively no utility when compared to the vast amount of historical and observable data available, which increases day by day.

There are no points for philosophical consistency. To date, governments are demonstrably better agents of policing than NGOs, and NGOs are demonstrably better builders of automobiles. Perhaps this may one day change, but it won't happen overnight, and no thinking person with their ear to the ground would be caught unawares.

When we debate these questions, we are consistently expected to use current or historical circumstances to debate the merits of some greater philosophical truth. This is a exercise in self-deception. Although this exercise is not without merit, it should be understood that there is no greater philosophical truth. The belief that a greater socio-economic truth exists is rooted in faith. The value of an education in socio-economic theory is not based upon finding a 'best one', but such that an individual can identify and apply modes of thinking, and having a broad understanding of the logic behind these modes, create a unique approach that works best in the current situation. Unfortunately such nuance is out of political fashion.