Yeah, I make it sound worse than it seems. The problem of the public insurance is that you pay based on your revenue instead of your actuarial risk, so in the end it should be treated as an extra form of revenue tax. I could go for the private insurance if I wanted to pay less, but then I'd have to switch my kids to the private insurer as well.

All in all, my point was only that the amount of taxes that people pay and quality of services are not necessarily related. Germany has high taxes and expensive-but-adequate healthcare. Greece has high taxes and expensive-and-inadequate healthcare. Switzerland has low taxes and universal/cheap healthcare (max. $5000/year deductible, max charge per hospitalization of $700).

> you pay based on your revenue instead of your actuarial risk

That's how public health works. It's the same as mortgage insurance in Brazil (where I come from), which is mandatory, and, since it's mandatory, it doesn't consider actuarial risk.

Doesn't make it right or morally virtuous.

There’s nothing virtuous in letting people die because they can’t afford medication or healthcare.

BTW, “right” and “wrong” are human constructs, so you are totally free to organise a society around the survival of the richest. It’s just not a society you’ll like living in.

You are jumping to an absurd conclusion, and makes you seem more concerned about an ideological position than thinking the problem through.

There are other ways to properly fund universal healthcare that does not involve creating artificial taxes:

- Increase the actual income taxes.

- Policies that mandate the allocation of revenue from vice and environmental taxes (alcohol, smoking, gambling, fossil fuels) to the health system.

- Social security reform. Pensions should not be an investment, only insurance. Turn pensions into an UBI program that has a hard cap.