Yes, you are misunderstanding me. Some people might attach a subjective value to the freedom to do what they please with their money. To them, this might be a h

Yes, you are misunderstanding me. Some people might attach a subjective value to the freedom to do what they please with their money. To them, this might be a higher idealized state of being than a state of being where people are less free with money but more free from worry about whether the next medical crisis will ruin them. This is not about any analysis of taxes or numbers of people who will die from lack of care: it’s a normative value. Sort of like saying “murder is wrong” ... okay, but why? Some people just sincerely believe that it’s better, from a moralistic standpoint, that your personal property and money are unrestricted. To them that is a high ideal state of humanity flourishing, because they look at the fact of the number of people who die from lack of care and they think, our freedom is well worth that unfortunate cost, and the world where we give up freedom (so they would say) to reduce the number of people who die from lack of care is a worse world (in their way of assigning value to states of being). You’re coming at it from a point of view where you seem to think the facts you cite “speak for themselves.” But there’s no such thing because many people are well aware of the exact facts you mention and yet think that universal healthcare represents a reduction of personal property freedoms that is morally wrong to such a degree that it’s worse than enduring the social costs that come with an absence of universal care.