Okay, so you acknowledge that a system of collective healthcare is A) Feasible when everyone contributes to a minimum level, and B) That people may contribute more or less than others, but are still entitled to equal care.

Thus, the ONLY real reason you do not support universal healthcare is because sone people do not earn it. I interpret this as, 'unemployed people do not pay taxes, why should they get free healthcare'.

My problem with that persepective is that I do not see the be-all and end-all of soneone's existence as what they do on weekdays between 9 and 5. I think, through virtue of being a person (or, more accurately, a citizen), then they 'earn' a minimum level of care. Being unemployed (or, 'earning too little to afford private healthcare') does not preclude being a valued member of a family, community, country. You can be a fine and upstanding member of society and yet be unable to aggord healthcare. You may bot be lazy at all. Indeed, there are very wealthy people who would be unable to work three jobs over 60 hours, attepmt to feed and educate your children, while raising them to be fine and upstanding persons of character and creativity.

Moreover, very few people do not pay tax. Here (because IDK about other countries in this regard), those who recieve benefits pay tax on them. Then, when they spend their benefits, they pay a goods and services tax, possibly an excise tax, probably a road user charge if they drive or take a bus, and so on. There are very few people who are genuinely lazy or do not contribute. There are very few people who are truly undeserving of a system which you yourself take advantage of and advocate. And even if there are undeserving people, I do not think that the poor-deserving should be sacrificed to punish the poor-undeserving.