I will give you the cliff notes.
1) If making social security voluntary resulted in even a 5% reduction in Social Security it would result in a smaller economic output of around 63 billion dollars and would cost the economy around 400,000 jobs. These losses would also be disproportional to rural areas who would be hit the hardest and can not afford to take that kind of hit. That is the economic impact, that doesn't even take into account the middle to lower class people who wouldn't volunteer because they need to feed their families and pay their mortgage that would end up homeless once they leave the workforce. But of course you could make the argument that feeding your family or paying your mortgage would not be "responsible". What the Tea Party doesn't seem to realize is that Social Security is not just a social safety net for quality of life, it is also an economic safety net.
2) Obamacare didn't really do anything to consumers except mandate that they have insurance. So before Obamacare health care was voluntary and the people that were punished for those who chose not to have it were the "people that have otherwise been responsible" who had insurance or paid their bills, only to have them priced outrageously to recoup the people who did not have insurance and didn't pay their medical bills.
3) If the banks were not bailed out, the smaller banks did not have the capital to assume the bigger bank's assets and liabilities (therefore free market principles would have destroyed the economy because there was no one else big enough to take over their market share, thus "too big to fail"), therefore without government assistance on the merger of some of the larger banks, asset relief by the government, and the government capitalizing the banks to loosen credit, you would have seen a literal evaporation of most of the nation's wealth, retirement packages disappearing, and frozen credit. Business rely very heavily on bank credit to pay their payroll. Between the frozen credit and the loss of wealth it would have resulted in unemployment of as high as, 50%-60% and would have reduced the US to a third world country virtually overnight.
Why do I say that? There has been only one major crisis that the government did not step in and assist the banks or force the other banks to assist, it is now known as the "Great Depression" which was actually a smaller shock to the system than the one we experienced in 2008 yet resulted in unemployment of 24% overall and 30% for non farm workers compared to a max of @10% and 10.5% respectively in this current recession. Plus the bailout actually reduced the decades of stagnation that this type of shock would likely cause.
Not to mention that the reason we got there was because of the free market taking advantage of deregulation and throwing consumer protection out the window in favor of big profits, which is the achilles heel of free market without checks and balances (i.e. regulation). Study after study also show that the Community Reinvestment Act did not cause the housing bubble.
4) The government did not subsidize high risk loans nor did they force banks to create them, banks set their own lending standards.
5) without federal loans on education you effectively set up a Plutocracy by making sure that the only people who can afford to get a higher education is those who come from a wealthier background.
6) Medical care has to be propped up because illness and health care contribute to 62% of all bankruptcies in the US. Without medical assistance that number would be even higher and there would be even more bankruptcies.
So yeah, it is pretty clear that every point you made would be disastrous to the US economy and quality of life and I stand by my earlier statement
1) It isn't the federal government's job to protect people from themselves, nor is it the federal government's job to provide a life savings plan. It is the federal government's job to protect the rights of its citizens as outlined in its structure and enumerated powers. To do more than that is picking and choosing which segments of the populace are important and which are not. That automatically introduces an institutionalized preferential treatment/exclusion that is the antithesis of liberty.
2) Insisting on having a permit to exist is an anathema to liberty. Of course it is understandable to want to fix a broken system of irresponsible people breaking a system built on the insurance model. My contention is that putting the band-aid of Obamacare (or Romneycare, or anything else that would bear a different name but the same system) to address irresponsible behavior is addressing a symptom, not the problem. The problem is allowing irresponsible behavior to exist without consequences (anyone that's worked in the ER can tell you exactly how this plays out). Responsibility is the flip side of the coin of liberty. That is a simple fact of existence no matter how one tries to make it otherwise.
3) False... patently. I happen to work for one of the fiscally responsible banks that would have thrived where the others should have failed. The answer to fixing cronysim isn't "more and better" cryonyism. The Great Depression was not a singular event caused by banking institutions. It was a series of events that exacerbated a number of issues. Like almost all things for the 20th century American federal government, a fix for what was supposed to be a temporary solution ended up being a permanent program.
4) The Affordable Housing Act incentevized risky loans to introduce a non-free market entity into an already favored system. To compete with your peers, you now had to take advantage of this wonderful new program or be hung out to dry by your competitors. What you are arguing is an academic view on a real-world issue. If you'd worked in the field, you'd know the difference.
5) State-sponsored loans are the reason why tuition prices are so high today. No one seems to question why the cost of tuition rose exponentially with the advent of government assistance. The value of a collegiate degree is reduced to almost nothing in the real-world today as a direct result of the lowering of standards for said degrees. Again, rather than slapping a band-aid on the symptom, we need to address the actual issue at hand.
6) Medical assistance cost has risen dramatically for a number of reasons over the past few decades. One prime example of how it is broken is how the ER is abused and the costs incurred due to frivolous litigation. For a simple diagnosis, thousands of dollars of tests now have to be run for a condition that runs less than 1/10th of 1 percent of cases coming into the door. Moreover, if you don't have health insurance, the hospital has to pick up the tab as they are not allowed to refuse service. Moreover, that is why people without insurance go to the ER for a cracked nail. Hyperbole? Yeah... but actually not that far off. If you doubt that, ask a triage nurse to get the straight skinny. Another example is GPs fleeing the state of NC because they cannot afford malpractice insurance largely brought on due to frivolous lawsuits. Another example is the concept of "pre-existing conditions" allowed to defeat the purpose of insurance to begin with. At that point, it is no longer insurance, but an entitlement program for merely existing at the expense of everyone else. Not necessarily a bad idea in concept, but ultimately doomed to fail due to a demonstrated history of abuse.
Again, these are the reasons that such things are not the purview of government, but of community. That is a key factor in what distinguishes libertarians from democrats. A governmental program invokes "charity" by forcing it at the barrel of a gun for what it deems to be "charity worthy". An actual charity allows the people to actually decide not only what is worthy of charity, but holds its institutions accountable for its actions. I challenge you to find any such accountability in DC.
What is disastrous for an economy is institutionalized governmental cronyism, not the antithesis of it (an ACTUAL free market).