Isn't it?. No If someone has no alternative but to rely on the NHS to patch them up, because the state steals the fruits of their labour from them at gunpoint (albeit thinly veiled) which they could otherwise be free to spend on medical insurance of their own free choice, then cost implications to the NHS can hardly be of any legitimate concern to them. One surely can't use use violence, or the threat of violence, to force their preferences upon someone else against their will and then righteously complain when the consequences of using said violence incurs a cost Now thats not to say that I don't think there shouldn't be any rules for the road, although setting those rules is not the job of the state. But that's besides the point. The point is that institutions like the NHS are fundamentally immoral and as such any arguments based upon them should be, for anyone who wouldn't like to think of themselves as a bully, self contradicting.