> Collective health care is far more efficient than private health care with donations

This is not my point either. I mean, I know there is scale playing there.

> Secondly it's not true ethically. Some people will do anything for friends and family, others won't lift a finger.

It is a trend, not an absolute. Also, none of us can be blamed for all the bad things in the world. We act as we deem appropriate and we can even interpret or understand things different, let alone have a different value scale.

> Thirdly the "more people -> less action" argument is clearly wrong on a collective scale

There are experiments. In psychology. When you add to a group, the responsibility starts to be "fuzzy" and we act different.

> because you employ individuals who are paid to provide professional help.

Yes, like psychologists without a license here in Spain for mistreatment of women in Andalucia put by friends of the administration without a need even to publish the name, surname, test score and ID. Curious, right? I wonder if I had to search one for a relative or friend if I would choose such "professionals" that I paid coactively with my money or I'd rather go for what I think is appropriate. What happens is that there is an enormous incentive for client systems in the public administration. And it shows clearly. Being democracies the most corrupt of those systems, since the more favors you do, the more chances you have to stay, without any care for taking fair decisions. Not meaning I am against or for democracies though, but it is clearly their worst defect. Of course I say all this with a good knowledge of Spain, other countries may vary.

> So your heart attack patient isn't rescued by a caring amateur who may have no clue what to do

The topic is not about that. The topic is about how fast are people willing to react to gather help depending on the safe nets they have among them. When people know noone else will do it, they react faster. In the opposite direction, they start to ignore the problems.

> The doctor and paramedic are paid with taxes because all the evidence shows that is cheaper, more efficient, and more reliable universal

Really? In Spain, btw my sis is a doctor, they get a shitty bill. Now we are in lack of doctors because they are not paid what they should and go abroad. Are you sure it is "cheaper"? Or what you mean is that it looks cheap bc they pay a sh*t and people keep leaving and there is a lack of them?

> Taxes are better than charity because in a collectively oriented system even with inefficiencies you don't get the patchy

No, taxes are not better because they are allocated by bureaucrats according to their criteria and you pay coactively. They pay no penalty for their bad decisions either. It is the worst possible system. Of course, it is not the same if they spend 10-30% of your taxes than if they use over 50% (like they do with me). The criteria to allocate is different. Remember that the administration is managed by humans, not gods, with the same defects and incentives we have: they might (and they do! as in the psychologists in Andalucia thing) prefer to have a few friends in the administration that will favor them over having good treatment for mistreated women. It works like this.

I see you believe in collective systems. Me too. But just in the ones where:

1. you have effective control on where the expenses go.
2. they are planned like a private business, with non-infinitely flexible budgets paid
3. if someone does not do a good job, they must be out of that management, paying for their mistakes

As long as those incentives do not hold, things will not work the way we think they are working.