There is a limited amount of money to spend on health care.
In a free-market system, the individual can decide for himself how much he wants to pay and can structure his insurance however he wants to to minimize his risk. Rationing decisions will be made by the individual.
In a socialized system, the state decides how much to spend on each individual for health care. The individual has no control over how his coverage is structured, and rationing decisions will be made by the state.
Now, these rationing decisions are often matters of life and death. It may sound attractive, at first glance, to have to state pay for expensive life extending care, so the individual does not have to pay the bill. But, ultimately, the state will further the state interest, not the individual’s interest. So when it comes time to pay for that expensive and life extending treatment, if the individual is unlikely to be a net asset to society, or is likely to become a future burden, the state will act rationally and deny the care.
Nothing personal. Just business.
The other problem with any socialized system that ever existed or ever will exist is that it quickly devolves into a two-tier system, with politically connected insiders getting adequate care, and the mass of unconnected plebians getting substandard care. There is absolutely no reason to think that would be different in our system.
So, the individual has to ask himself, is he going to be one of the lucky few who benefits from adequate state-run care, or is he going to be one of the masses, who is shuffled into dirty state-run hospitals only to be denied the care he needs?
The way I see it, your argument is most effective to a person who has experienced the horrors first-hand, but to someone who only thinks of the good, without considering the negative, your argument would result in the “glazed eyes” response.
Not that you are wrong. It’s just that I’d think the typical (lib) “soundbite” response would be the most effective to a lib.