1) Emergency health care fits that bill, but not the vast majority of care. Even life-saving care is subject to market forces - for example, if you were diagnosed with life-threatening, but treatable cancer, you would have time to find a treatment center that took your insurance rather than sign on with the first one you saw; if insurance weren't in play, you would absolutely be in control of choosing cost vs. outcomes - in many cases you might choose not to have treatment at all rather than spend your last dime extending your life by a few years.
2)
Health is not a meritocracy. In many ways, it is. I choose to lower my risk of lung cancer by not smoking. I choose to lower my risk of heart disease by exercising. My lifestyle and my habits can lower the amount of utilization I receive.
It's random, therefore nobody should be punished for having it.
So, if you get cancer, and I choose not to pay for your treatment, am I punishing you? Do you believe that a society which does nothing about your health is actively punishing you? I'm having trouble understanding how you are connecting those dots.
What happens if a baby is born with a congenital heart defect and needs an operation to save its life? Who pays the bill? The parents?
Do you have kids? Yes. The parents pay the bills.
Let's suppose my wife is pregnant and we discover that our unborn baby will have a heart defect that will cost $1m to cure, or will cost $1k to abort. Should the state be allowed to tell me that it will only pay for the abortion, but not the surgery to save the baby's life? Let's suppose the surgery doesn't cost $1m but rather $1 trillion dollars. Or $20 trillion dollars. Should I expect the entire economic output of the United States to save 1 life? Of course not. That's the problem with socialized medicine. At some point, these hard decisions have to be made, and I would rather that every individual parent in this country be required to make that choice - abortion or bankruptcy - than be told by a single-payer-funded hospital that they won't pay for that surgery and that my best option is to abort my unborn baby.
And that's part of what's wrong with these hypothetical mental masturbatory exercises here on the internet. If you've never been in a situation where you're the parent of a child who needs treatment for something then you won't get why socialized medicine scares the shit out of a lot of people, including me. I live a comfortable middle (or possibly upper-middle depending on your definition) lifestyle and I cannot afford $1m in medical expenses - only the super wealthy really can - but I would gladly go bankrupt in a second to pay for life-saving treatment for my children. In a single payer world, that decision could be taken out of my hands.
Of course a reasonable reaction would be, "but that's the point of single payer - everyone gets treatment and nobody goes bankrupt in the process." But healthcare is a finite resource and someone has to decide how it's allocated. You may be willing to cede that authority to the state for the greater good, but I'll say this: I don't want to meet the parent who would sacrifice his child for "the greater good."