"I agree that they are unlikely to be in a position to go privately, although their ability to affect that outcome is something we would almost certainly disagree on.
"More likely, I think a low-paid worker who votes Tory probably takes the view that the NHS is overrun with a lot of self-inflicted illness and they might like to see a squeeze on A&E admissions related to alcohol, gastric bypasses, mobility scooters and the like on the basis that they feel it's highly unlikely they'd need those services.
One example."
You make a very good point and I do see why this argument is convincing to some.
But there some huge fails in this logic.
The truth is that not everyone can be wealthy and be in the top 10% of earners. While we all might have the innate ability to do so capitalist economics does simply not work this way. So if we take this as a given there will always be people who do not have the earning capacity of others as someone has to have "lesser jobs".
Do we really want to live in a society where we simply say well you COULD be a high earner if you really wanted to be and worked hard enough. As your not you will have to make do with what we are willing to provide to you even if it is not adequate to educate your children or help you if for some horrid reason your health fails you and leaves you unable to work?
If this is the case who will be our nurses, TA's, care workers?
We could in theory I guess all by wealthy if we had enough immigration to do all the jobs that did pay enough for UK nationals. But then this would lead to an underclass of immigrants who would be the sole users of a bare bones social state as well as anyone who fell on hard times or had health issues and no family support.
It just seems when you get to the root of it all, when people try and explain why it always comes down to scapegoating. The abusers of the NHS, the immigrants taking our valuable resources, the benefits cheats.
What about the banks that led to the huge bail out?
What about the avoidance of tax by huge multinationals?
What about the £205 billion for trident? Which by its deterrent nature is designed not to be actually used.
Would this not be a better route to providing more income for the government than making cuts to benefits, education and the NHS.