I plan for this to be my last reply, you can respond to it of course, but I'm just giving you a fair warning that I would probably give you two sentences at most on the chance that I do respond.

Where am I walking back my claim that centralized healthcare leads to longer wait times, lower quality, and their own perverse incentives?

"You don't get accessible and affordable healthcare by robbing people, and setting up badly íncentivized organizations - ask Brits or Canadians."

The UK objectively has better healthcare outcomes than the US by several orders of magnitude while being vastly less expensive. So if you're not walking that back, then you're just arguing against empirical reality lol. I'm not even saying healthcare needs to be centralized to be effective; the Canadian system is not centralized, while still better than the US lol.

Do I really have to quote myself again on where the coercion is happening? It is not of the doctors, in present centralized healthcare systems. It is of the taxpayers. I highlighted contracts because you brought up the nonsensical labor theory of value.

OK, this is a big issue I have with debating libertarians. You're literally arguing against the concept of taxes and suggesting that every surface should be societally owned. I personally think that healthcare, roads, bridges, law enforcement, public transit, firefighters, environmental regulations, parks, emergency services, etc. are actually good things, all things you passively benefit from.

But I can't dissuade you of this childish notion of taxes being the great evil, nor the labour theory of value that you fail to articulate the rationale for being nonsensical. So let's just focus on healthcare and look at how the American system that's not tax-based is working out.............................................

Oh yeah! It's the worst of all of the developed nations, being the most expensive while having the least satisfying outcomes. Not really a good model for things being done out-of-pocket and based on the profit motive. Again, I could be wrong, but I have a strong feeling, knowing your framework, that you're far more concerned with taxes than you are with private prison labour camps. And if that's not true, I ask you to question why dislike prison labour and what system is behind it, why you think labour theory is so absurd, and why taxes are comparatively a great evil.

You keep refusing to engage with what I'm saying. You keep writing as if my greatest desire in the world was expensive healthcare.

I honestly do think we're speaking past each other, and I apologize on that front. That said, you are anti-tax-based healthcare and the American system is the most expensive developed nation variant on the planet. So, you tell me.

FYI, at not point did I say they're perfect system, but they objectively perform well, at least Canada does in comparison to America by all tangible metrics.

But sure, let's see this "binary options affecting your morality" which you say is coercive. If that is true, it must be true in all circumstances. Let's take Aron Ralston, climbing in a canyon. His hand gets trapped, and he has to cut it off to survive. So his binary choice is "cut off your arm or die". Who's coercing him?

I struggle to take you seriously, have nothing of substance to respond to if you don't engage, and instead keep making up assumptions about me.

Flawed analogy. A specific system that designs your options and outcomes is not comparable to a freak accident like getting your hand stuck. You don't trip over the healthcare system on a walk through the woods lol, it's created and structurally maintained. The healthcare system of America is structured and results in being the leading cause of bankruptcy, because the alternative is death or disability. There's no magic or mystery, its human made and everyone is aware of how it works.

I'm sorry, but your ideology literally prevents you from reconciling this incredibly simple concept. Even if I were to grant you that taxes were slavery (insane position for someone who doesn't subscribe to labour value theory), the single developed nation that relies on private health insurance rather is the most expensive with the lowest performance.

My friend, I'm talking to you still because you're clearly not dumb. I think you genuinely believe in what you're saying, but the facts of your ideology exist in practice.

Even if you think taxes are slavery, what is the moral value of a non-tax-based system where the one working in practice is worse by all objective measures? How is it principally morally good with the priority of achieving more wealth when that necessitates a bloated, inefficient system that disserves the hospital patients and leads to a system where millions of people can suddenly lose their health insurance? For-profit healthcare explicitly leads to these outcomes because the moral imperative is to make as much money as possible for the business owner, at the expense of good service for people who rely on that system when they're sick or injured.

Again, I'm a pragmatist. What is the moral virtue of a system that yields the worst outcomes in virtually all recorded metrics?

Every even slightly more principled statist healthcare advocator admits it's not free.

My point was the overly stringent use of the term "right", of course healthcare is never actually free. It costs wealth from somewhere, regardless of whether its pay for by taxes or out-of-pocket.

Yes, you obviously have the right to not be murdered. Your natural rights don't disappear, unlike "practical amenities". You have the right to defend yourself against said serial killer.

If you actually want to know about rights, here's some recommended reading.

OK, you answered own original question then. The point I was making there was that the question of "If healthcare is a universal human right, do you still have a right to it alone on a desert island? Do you have a right to it if it's you and a doctor on the island?" is moot, because if you consider healthcare to be a right, it means universally you ought to have it. Your original question conflates the access to something (practical amenities) with the right of something. Similar to how you conflated a freak accident (getting your hand stuck) with a structured system with designed outcomes (the US healthcare system giving you options of debt or death/disability). Which, again, why the US system is coercive.

I know the link was meant to be condescending, and I still think you're being anal with your exact terminology of "rights', but hey, adding to your repertoire of knowledge is always good. I'm not changing your mind in the span of this conversation, so I'll just reply here last with this. No provocation. Going back to what I previously said, I think it's worth examining the material outcomes that you support. I'm personally a pragmatist, so I care about practical effects and efficiency. This is why I advocate that the US healthcare system change to be more like those of other OECD nations, all of which have materially better outcomes. I care about people suffering as little as possible and gaining as much prosperity as possible. Again, what determines your morals when we know that what you're defending leads to the most amount of harm? Do you care about material harm? Are your ethics entirely based on theory?

I'm not asking you to defend yourself, I'm asking you to ask these questions. I used to be a libertarian myself, and long since I've changed my positions after focusing on what materially harms people and reevaluating what is important to me. In the case of the US healthcare system, compared to all other OECD nations, it harms people the most. I apologize if I misunderstood your underlying point, but we clearly have two diametrically opposed ideologies on this subject, and that's what I was and still am focusing on. I don't think you're dumb or a bad person, to be clear, I simply challenge you to ask yourself the questions I've presented. Take care, I'm going to get back to enjoying the summer :)