I'll read in full another time, but caught the first few. I think the jist of Purple's argument is that we're in a consequence free environment. I agree with that. If there were some consequences (not saving they have to be dire) then people would change behaviour.
Simple example is plastic bag tax, the 5c or whatever was never a financial issue, but yet the minute consequence was enough to change behviour. Same with the prescription charge - absolutely nothing should be given for nothing, it leads to the greatest sin in my book - waste!!
So you charge people at least a nominal amount to avoid these Moral Hazard type scenarios. If you need a heart op because you're obese or a smoker then you pay x% of your annual income (say 5%), even if income is 100% SW (the point is not to recoup the cost, the point is to change the behaviour). So then maybe you'd try to avoid that outcome. At the moment we're running an adult creche, where people can have any number of kids and give out about how they are poorly served, obviously never having any intention of providing for them themselves. I'd cut SW for kids beyond 2, not increase it, we don't need a breeding programme on an overpopulated planet.