my dude, private insurance already works on exactly the same principle. your insurer doesn't set your dollars aside for you in case you need them later. they spend the money you give them on other people's healthcare. that's just how any kind of group insurance works. you're paying for it to be available to you when you need it.
i do not understand this quixotic quest to preserve the "freedom" to not spend money on healthcare. that's not a genuine freedom. i don't think i've ever met a single human who wants to make that choice. and that's because it isn't really a free and un-coerced choice. everyone wants to not be sick and debilitated. being sick and debilitated are anathema to freedom.
put another way: "i have to pay these taxes because i don't want to lose freedom by going to jail" is qualitatively identical to "i have to pay my private insurance bill because i don't want to lose freedom by getting sick and not having any healthcare." they're both coerced choices.
the only real consideration is — how do we min-max cost and access to a service that literally everyone requires? right now we have a system of private firms that minimize access and maximize costs for the purpose of extracting profit from the coerced choice to purchase health insurance. how about instead we have a system that operates on literally precisely the same principle as private insurance, but actually provides a service.
tbh if the choice were between single-payer and private insurance with the same access to healthcare, then i'd probably be more sympathetic to your view. i dunno about you, but my plan is currently "give us lots of money now for the privilege of still paying lots of money out-of-pocket when you need healthcare later."
Private insurance is voluntary and makes people pay based on their individual status. If a person is more likely to require expensive healthcare, an insurer will give them a higher premium to offset their costs. The government cannot (and should not) charge people based on their healthcare choices. Asking for public healthcare, and considering it a right, is the equivalent of asking the government to do things like regulate health as a whole. No, the system is not perfect, but it's better than moving the cost to the government. What you'll end up with is a bad case of regulatory capture. (or, you know, exactly what happened with ACA). Moving the cost to the government makes healthcare cheaper in much the same way as having the government pay for higher learning makes tuition for colleges go down: ergo, it doesn't.
I would only agree with public healthcare alongside the introductions of things like sugar taxes, higher drug taxes, and mandated DNA tests to determine if you should be charged more for expected complications. In other words, if the government gets involved in the healthcare business, it should be all of it, not just fronting the cost of healthcare to taxpayers who shouldn't be responsible for it. Personally, I don't think the government should do any of that and therefore it should stay out of healthcare. Unless you want to tax people for being fat, you shouldn't want public healthcare, either.
Ahhh, I figured you were using your own personal definition.
Welp, nothing to argue then.
You never answered my question. If the UN determined that X race has no right to live, would you agree with it? The answer is almost certainly 'no' and that means you're the one deciding what are human rights and not the UN. Ultimately, rights are up to you to decide for yourself, not for some government or psuedo-government to lecture to you.
On what basis are you saying gun ownership is described as a fundamental right everywhere?
The basis that human rights do not suddenly exist in some places and not in others. You are confused between what's legal and illegal and what's a human right. The two are not connected at all.