Peregrinus, I was tempted to reply to your entire thread but gave up. The U.S. didn't exist before independence but we didn't have socialized education until fairly recently and our present socialized education system is not something on which I'd want to base a healthcare system.
The United States has had publicly-provided schools from its foundation and, prior to that, the colonies provided public schools. These were not all free to the user – some charged tuition - but most were at least subsidised, and many were free, right from the start, being supported by local taxation. The colonies/states were providing free-to-user schools more than a century before the practice became widespread in Europe. “Socialised education” is an American invention, copied by Europeans. All that has changed since colonial times then is the scale and scope of free-to-user public education – e.g. the provision of education for girls as well as boys, the provision of high schools as well as elementary schools - not the principle.
You apparently don't understand the difference between net worth and income.
What makes you say that? Of course I understand the difference. I mention both because means tests for various public services can be based either on capital assets, or on income, or on some combination of both. The point is that for many taxpayer-provided public services there is no means test based on either; the service is subsidised, or free, on the same terms for everyone who uses it, regardless of what assets or income they have. There is no eternal principle written in stone which says that healthcare services cannot be among those provided in this way.
But, you're right, people can choose to ride the subway or the taxi but they pay for the use of both, unless they're poor. If they have the ability to pay for the subway, they do. In many places, if they're poor, they get to ride the subway for free.
But those who pay for the subway, even those very wealthy people who pay for the subway, typically benefit from a substantial taxpayer subsidy (to which, of course, as taxpayers, they contribute). So, I ask again, why single out healthcare as a service which cannot be provided in a similar way? If the very wealthy have the same access to subsidised or free-to-user government-provided trains, roads, police, fire brigades, national defence, schools, parks, museums, etc, as the rest of us, why cannot they have similar access to government-provided healthcare? Why is healthcare different?
And, I don't know anywhere that has eliminated, by law, taxis to force people to use subways or that denies people the right to use a subway if they've taken a taxi.
And I don’t know anywhere that, by law, has forced people to use publicly-provided healthcare, or forbidden them from obtaining and paying for their own healthcare, if they want to, from anyone (competent and licensed) who is willing to provide it.
According to Cuba's self-reporting, they have the lowest infant mortality in the world and no one is in prison. And, the U.S. has 70 million people with no access to healthcare. A recent poll in the U.S. said that 10% of those surveyed believe government statistics.
If your defence of the US healthcare system is going to be based on the assumption that the US Census Bureau is lying, and that the US actually enjoys better life expectancy, infant mortality, etc than it admits to, it’s not going to be a very convincing defence, is it? At the very least, you need to produce some
evidence that the Census Bureau statistics are false. You’ll also have to explain why the insurance offices, who produce their own mortality statistics from their own substantial databases are in on the conspiracy, given that they would have a powerful vested interest in talking up
the outcomes of the present US healthcare system. Yet, embarrassing as they are, they don’t dispute the Census Bureau figures.
No, I’d drop this line of argument, if I were you. Odds are that the Census Bureau figures are correct.
I still think a system that helps those who need help but expects those who can take care of themselves to do so is a desirable goal. Forcing people into a system they don't want is not desireable.
Where have I advocated forcing anybody to use publicly-provided healthcare? On the contrary, I have pointed out in relation to education that people who don’t want to use the public schools are free to attend and pay for private schools, and a substantial number do; why should you assume that I don’t favour a similar approach to healthcare?