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.
I understand what you are saying about the “My Eyes Glaze Over” (MEGO) response.
How about I simplify it.
When I am old, and have saved enough money in my life to be able to enjoy my life, I will spend what it takes to buy insurance that will pay for the necessary life saving care I might need to extend my life. I do this because it is my decision to spend my money on what is important to me, which is my own health and life.
My life and health will be worth very little to the state, because I hope to be retired. I am not going to be paying a lot of taxes or doing any great productive things for society. I want to spend my days quietly on my hobbies, living simply and enjoying myself. In fact, with the estate taxes that will no doubt be coming back, I will be worth a lot more, to the state, dead than alive.
Unfortunately, if the state is making decisions on whether or not I get life-saving treatment, they will be able to make sure I die early, and thus save expenses associated with my dotage, save what ever entitlement payments they might have had to make, and get their hands on half of my estate.
If I am running a bank, I don’t hire a thief to guard it, because the thief will quickly figure out that it is more profitable for him to rob the bank than it is for him to guard it for the salary I am paying him. Similarly if I am an individual, with money in the bank. I don’t hire the government to make my medical decisions, because they will quickly figure out that it is much more cost-effective for them to let me die than it is for them to preserve my life in order to recover whatever I might pay in taxes.