I am sorry you misunderstood me so mischievously, but I linked the explanations and did explain that to say "public funds must never be used for private good" is not, what I meant to say and probably didn't. Anyone that understood me to have been categorical in that respect did not read the whole input.
What part of:
the thing boils down to the fact that a private good should not be supplied by the public.
...did we misunderstand mischievously?
What is correct is that removing a private good from the market allocation process to the public sphere will waste limited resources and so will reduce general welfare. A society can nonetheless decide for the waste and less efficiency.
Isn't that what every economy in the world does to a greater or lesser extent? Tell us, and be specific, which private goods are not removed from the market allocation process in any way? I understand that it's a point of principle and aspiration of anarcho-capitalists, but just like CPEs, it has never been proved to work.
Also, goods are not always public in all of their features and might have subcategories, where the public aspects weigh more than the private. But you do not even try to make the rational argument and plum for ideologically driven socialization.
Providing universal healthcare free at the point of delivery is not an ideologically-driven idea. It is a rational solution to a universal demand.
Healthcare is neither a wholly public nor private good. It is
a merit good that benefits both the individual consumer and society in general. It is excludable, but different societies have decided on varying ways of judging the criteria used for excluding individuals from consuming it.
The UK model sees medical judgement of need and, in a situation of elastic demand and ineleastic supply, waiting lists also act as that mechanism. The general approach of privately operated health services uses price to exclude. Sure, ideology plays a part in deciding which model to adopt, but the benefits of a universal, tax-funded system are easily explained, it's just that they are not all economic. A healthy populace is a more productive populace in general, and improving universal healthcare has proved time and again (look at China, Japan, Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea) to be a driver of economic growth, but those are not the only important considerations.
Providing universal healthcare has so many benefits it's hard to list them all here, but decreases in infant mortality, increasing life-expectancy, reduction of morbidity and congenital disability are just a few. Most of those have positive economic ramifications, but more significantly, they are contributors to the social good. Unless you take a Malthusian attitude to improved life expectancy, the benefits of these improvements seem self-evident.
As for other publicly supplied goods, you must look at each one from the vantage of economic knowledge. You see, a product can have been a mostly public good or a private good worth supplying publicly at the lower level of technology available 10 or 30 years ago.
Okay, you're contradicting yourself here. Either public funding of a private good is wrong in principle, as you've been arguing earlier in the thread, or it's not. Here it appears that you are not arguing the principle, but a situational approach to public funding of private goods.
Today's transaction costs or information availability have relegated many of these historically sensible solutions to competitive disadvantages and the undesirables heap.
According to your ideologically-driven social agenda, but don't take it from me that arguments for UHC transcend pure economic rationales,
here's a very well argued and widely documented article from a Nobel prize-winning economist.