I get the impression that the real problem with health care specifically is that we are keeping sicker people alive longer with more effective (and expensive) treatments, and this increased cost is not being reimbursed by valuable work done by those sick people. In simplistic economic terms it is not cost-effective to keep a certain class of people alive or healthy. Is that analysis evil? I think so; automation will almost certainly put 99% of unmodified humans into that class at some point in the future. The practical effect is perhaps what we are seeing; Walmart and McDonalds can't afford to pay enough money to keep their minimum wage workers as healthy as a Silicon Valley tech worker or a NY banker, and the difference in achievable healthcare outcomes between a low income worker and a high income worker has increased significantly in the last 50 years. Remember when cancer and heart disease and even diabetes used to kill people (rich or poor) quickly and cheaply?

Guaranteed basic income or minimum wage aren't sufficient on their own to solve the problem. Total production efficiency (or at the very least medical/health care efficiency) has to increase at a rate equal to or above the rate that medical treatments and medical technology advance. When automation unemploys people from McDonalds and Walmart they will still get sick. at roughly the same rate, and with the same diseases. The total cost of providing healthcare will not go down, barring increases in efficiency, and the cost of welfare would increase. Given those assumptions it seems like the best action is to allow McDonalds and Walmart to continue to employ people at existing, sustainable wages and leave them on welfare, and implement as much of basic income or increases in minimum wage that the rest of the economy can bear to prepare for widespread automation, and focus heavily on automating medical care to improve its efficiency.