These ridiculous hypotheticals happen every minute.  Only regulations stop the further consequences.

This is simply not true.  You are making this up.  Give one example of a country with a free market health system that is better and more efficient than a public health system.  One single case.  Just one! 

Your mistake here is to assume health services is a free market.  It isn't.  You can't go shopping for a surgery when you are half dead, like you shop for a computer.  I live in a public health system, and I can still choose which hospital to get treatment at (even private hospitals).  Try to make me choose another hospital than the closest adequate one if I fall seriously ill.  It isn't going to happen.  If I wasn't dead or in a much worse condition when I got to a hospital far away, I would certainly not enjoy the transport.  The right to choose hospital makes almost no difference to where people get treated.  Luckily there are regulations to assure a minimum quality, so I'm not putting myself at risk by going to the closest hospital, and there is not really a need to google for alternatives in the ambulance.

If your heart stops, you assume that you can just go to the shop and get a new one, right?  I value myself more than I value my computer.  I also value my house more than I value my computer, and have an insurance for my house.  I do not have insurance for my health.  My health is insured by the public health system, since I am valuable for the government as a tax payer.  The government profits by making sure I get well and get back to work as soon as possible.

Ah, so you want some kind of regulation after all!  Like certifications, which you argued against earlier.

It isn't yours, it belongs to the government.  What make you think it is yours?

Your rights over property you call your own are limited by the same laws that allow you to own property in the first place.  If you don't want the laws to apply, you need to start your own country.  Either by fighting for it, which I understand you want to do by threatening the police, or by settling in some part of the earth not yet claimed by any nation and declare your own nation there.  If you decide to take the land from your country by force, you must be prepared to fight the army.  The country has a right to fight back.

I have written many posts explaining that.  Go back and ask about the specifics you don't understand, and I may be able to explain them to you again.  I understand it can be difficult when you lack basic logic knowledge and don't believe in the right to property.  (Because it is evident to anyone with a basic understanding og property and logic.)

The police wouldn't be there in the first place if you paid your tax.  Stop whining like a baby and pay your tax like a grownup.

I doubt the police would make arrests in anything but property, unless you threaten them.  Your property is more valuable than you when the tax is to be paid.  Kidnap you!?  To demand ransom?  You sure have a child's fantasy.  The government has the right to take back their property, and throw you out of it if necessary.  Just like you have if someone live at your place without paying the the rent.  If they don't like your rent, they are free to move to another place with a lower rent.  And so are you when it comes to taxes.

No.  From threatening the police.

Correct.

What country is this?  In my country it is very common to own a gun, but the police do not carry guns.  The police are allowed to arm themselves if the situation requires it, but the rules are very strict and it rarely happens.  Violence involving firearms is very rare.

No law in my country will threaten to kill anyone.  In fact the most common reason for people getting political asylum in most of Europe is a death penalty, or a real threat of a death penalty, in their home countries.  Only a handful countries still practice death penalty, and I have no plans to go there.

And I'm still not answering your silly hypothetical questions with no base in modern reality.  Go back in time and ask me then, or whatever.

I still don't get the point of this discussion.  The tax discussion has diverged into some pointless question asking about morality, like it had anything to do with it.  Countries have the right to tax their land and inhabitants.  It is the foundation of human civilization.  No less.  For good and evil.  Without there would either be no nations or no freedom (North Korea is the only completely tax free nation I know of).

No, threatening to kill someone is immoral.  And illegal.  Threatening to kill someone can get you in prison for up to three years in my country.

Haha, no.

Of course it can.  It depends entirely on the situation.  If I kill you and steal your wallet, it would be immoral.  If you live in my house and refuse to pay the rent for one year, threatening to throw you out unless you pay the rent is moral.  Do you think both have the same moral value?

Could you please just tell me what you try to achieve by repeating questions?  You keep asking the same over and over, until you get an answer you can quote out of context and change the meaning of to prove something for yourself.

When required by law, and the force or intimidation used is within limits described by law?  No, of course not!  It would be immoral not to pay in the first place.

Those are trick questions.  You are using them to force me to give answers to support your wicked religion, even if the questions themselves bear no relevance to reality.  The answer would be just as irrelevant as the questions.  The situation you describe is impossible, and you know this very well.  Would it be immoral to divide by zero?

I know of no real world example of an immoral action which is legally required of me.  Feel free to find real world examples.  Please keep to yourself your obscene fantasies and obscure laws from countries which I have chosen not to live in or even travel to.

Huh?  The law books are full of laws depriving the government from power.  It is basically what laws do.  Without them you wouldn't have any rights, including human rights, as the government owns everything on it's land by definition.  The laws hand a lot of rights over from the government to the citicens, including limited private property rights, but keep others.  Like the right to deprive thieves from some liberties granted by law.  The right for a government to tax it's land and people is older than any human rights, and is mainly the reason why countries exist in the first place.  If kings/emperors/pharaos/tsars/presidents couldn't demand anything from their people, they wouldn't have a reason to gather all this land and defend it.

Due to free market competition, countries with good laws and low level of exploitation of their people tend to be more successful than other countries.  They will attract smart people.  If they give up their right to be a country, they will be conquered by someone who won't.

You intentionally replaced the words legal and moral with legality and morality.  For the first pair the state is given.  For the second pair the state can be both.

Congratulations, you finally got it!

Theft is legally defined.  If it isn't legally theft, it isn't theft.  In my country everyone are free to move on and harvest wild berries from uninhabited non-cultivated land, no matter who owns the land.  It falls under the freedom to roam, which is an ancient right held in high regard.  In many other countries picking blueberries and mushrooms in someone else's forest would be theft.

I already told you a milder version of your first question is so hypothetical it hurts, and your second question doesn't describe anything sensible.  Your questions don't deserve an answer.  If the moon was made of cheese and it kept bouncing on the Earth, would a yellow striped heffalump eat it?

You missed again!  Legailty = the state or quality of being in conformity with the law; lawfulness.  Morailty = conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.  I specifically stated that the negative state of legality confers the negative state of morality.  You imply the opposite.

Is basic logic so hard for you?  No wonder you can't understand property or law.

Why do you keep asking questions I already answered multiple times in bold?

No, you are very selective about the quotes you want to discuss.  You quickly deleted this part: You took it out of context and invented your own meaning.

I am correct and you don't make logical sense.  Please look up modus ponens and modus tollens.  By failing the simplest logic, you are making a complete fool of yourself.  No wonder you need the same answers over and over again, and still don't understand them.

Yes, breaking the law is wrong.  I have never written or implied anything else, and if you think so it is because you fail the simplest logic.  Why did you bother to ask the question when I already answered multiple times in bold?

As tax goes, it's payment to the real government (i.e. not you, whatever you call yourself) is required by law. Therefore it is immoral and wrong to not pay tax to the country who's land you live on.  This follows by the same logic.

You completely fail to understand the concept of property.  I think that is sad.  How can stealing have meaning to you when property don't?

You still fail Logic.  Look up modus ponens and modus tollens and read again.

Short summary:  not legal -> not moral
This does not imply anything else.  You can not turn the arrow or remove one or both "not"s without changing the meaning.  By changing the words to legality and morality, you get at least one possible meaning which is different from what I wrote.

No, you are not the government, and it doesn't matter what you call yourself or what you do when you steal my property.  Why do you keep asking this silly question?  By stealing you are breaking the law, which is immoral.  I don't know why I keep typing this, because you obviously don't know how to read.

Because you aren't walking or talking or thinking, you are about to die.  The doctor has to decide for you, and only has seconds to do so.

Yep, it is the hopeless mix of private and public health system with insurance companies and lawyers taking cuts.  It's an industry.  A public health system proves to be much more efficient, as far as you can prove something using statistics from other countries.

They will have to help out as well when the bill for keeping that heart and lung machine running for tree days come on the table.  You chose the extra expensive model by moving your left eyelid, or so the doctor tells you.

Because with no regulations he can.

Yeah.  With no regulations and licences and "general market distortions", you have no idea if he is actually educated as a doctor.  He may have been a homeless who just mugged a doctor for his bag and coat, and got lucky because he happened to be around the office doing pro-bono work as a gynecologist.

Even Jesus told people to pay their taxes to the emperor in Rome.  This was very controversial at the time.  The Romans did not hesitate to use force to make people pay their taxes.  Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's.  He had a clear understanding of property rights.