I think that onifre is technically on topic, but I can't help but feel it goes against the spirit of the topic in some sense. I get the feeling Dr. A wanted to talk about universal public health, rather than a very limited conditional public health.
I think the possible virtues of a strict and conditional health care system have been expressed fully, and rebuttals to that position have been given. It might be time to wind that line of argument down so that it doesn't become the bulk of this thread.
I think there is an associated, but interesting line of reasoning that onifre hints at, and that might be ok to discuss. The potential
moral hazard that might follow universal healthcare of any persuasion, but especially most public models that have ever been seriously proposed.
™ Version 4.2
