It's not a strawman. Ruining entire countries is literally what the parent comment said would happen if we do something as outrageous as making ambulances free.

> But those same people, through one false rationalization or another, are more than happy to ruin the entire country.

You may not have agued it yourself but your two sentence comment is rather lacking in alternate arguments, so I can only interpret you as supporting said parent comment and now engaging in a motte-and-bailey now that you realise you don't actually like what they said.

What do you consider financial ruin? Last time I checked most of those countries are desperately trying to contain their healthcare spending.

The increase in healthcare costs is more a function of an aging population, rather than people (mis)using ambulances too much. However in these countries, although the rates are fairly low, misuse of ambulances is often heavily linked to poor levels of health literacy or lack of transportation options - though the caller often genuinely perceives it as an emergency - both of which can be improved through other programs such as education and public transport provisions. It’s almost as if providing good public education and transportation makes the population more productive and less wasteful.

> The increase in healthcare costs is more a function of an aging population, rather than people (mis)using ambulances too much.

Sure, but increasing healthcare costs are due to a number of factors like new technology adoption, not just an aging population.

So while I would agree that no one is going bankrupt from overuse of ambulances, it all adds up.

I refuse to play these games. If you wish to make the argument that universal healthcare (including cheap or free ambulance coverage at point of use) necessarily leads to financial ruin you are free to make that argument, along with all the necessary support such a position requires. If you do not wish to do so, then I have no issues and thus decline to make any argument otherwise.

I am not obligated to make your argument for you, and I am not inclined to calibrate your motte-and-bailey merely because you feel like interjecting your support for a position you would call a strawman when called out.

> I am not obligated to make your argument for you

Are you just uncomfortable with debate? How do you debate the merits of the argument without defining the terms being used?

No, I just don't see any point in debating anything when you presumably agree that nobody is being bankrupted by free ambulance rides given that you called it a strawman. If you wish to defend what you called a strawman, which I didn't think people normally did in good faith but could be convinced otherwise, then I am willing to let you set the definitions you wish and make a case, as is standard for those instigating a discussion, while reserving the right to decline further participation if my disagreement with the position is below a certain threshold and/or any other reason I might find the discussion unproductive.

I never said no one would be bankrupted by ambulance fees.

We’re talking about financial ruin of the government.

I really don't see the point of playing these word games. I had assumed you meant the government, yes.

Clarifying definition is not a "word game". You seem quite uncomfortable debating the facts, and that's ok.

I am not interested in discussing "facts" with someone who has yet to acknowledge their motte-and-bailey, which for obvious reasons does not engender a reasonable expectation that such a discussion would be approached in good faith. If you wish to make a claim, you are free to explain your preferred definitions yourself. If you don't, there is nothing to debate.