There are times when I'm convinced the UHC argument boils down to an ethic comparable to Maoist or legalist China.
Communion before individuals, structure before agency. The abundance of people in society makes it so caring about particular decision making is irrelevant.
It is better to have things centrally planned so everyone is orchestrated together. Those who fall through the cracks are impractical to help, so are hopeless.
The hopeless' sacrifice is necessary to let society progress onward ho, whatever that direction may be as long as we're progressing.
Still, insiders should do what they can to shore up outsiders, but in-betweeners should endure the burden of having their intelligence neglected because it's unnecessary.
If outsiders don't appreciate authoritarianism, they should be ignored or cast out as unappreciative despite not consenting to participate.
There is only so much we can do, and power politics is part of life. Those who refuse to acknowledge the powerful's benevolence deserve to have power exercised against them.
After all, they're behaving like monkey wrenches, and nobody likes a monkey wrench. Elites who exercise power to accommodate monkey wrenches make themselves vulnerable to being outcompeted by other elites. Even if the monkey wrench is successful, that success will be incompatible with others' success, so it will only make things unnecessarily difficult.
I'm not sure Maoists appreciate how social mobility depends on independent information and decision making. They insist on believing people are primarily products of their circumstances, and people only deserve to have potential fulfilled if it's convenient.
It wouldn't surprise me if this country fell for environmentalist spirituality in the future similar to Confucian ancestry and feng shui. Even if they're not real causation, they're obligated to be performed in order to garnish the favor of politicians who like them.