Mr Smith, you said:
"I believe that as I pay for a full enroute ATC service when flying IFR in my aircraft, I should get just that. This is not the present system. Currently when I get to the place I really need ATC (i.e. at lower levels in the terminal area – doing an instrument approach) I am handed off to a “do it yourself” system where I have to become my own air traffic controller."
I think you are incorrect. You, in fact, pay sufficient to cover (in theory) the service that you currently receive. No more, no less.
You (and the flying community) can have any additional service you want ... as long as you are willing to pay an additional premium.
It has been stated over and over again, by those with accurate and current information, that what you are asking for... will cost extra in resources, training and salaries.
As much as you "believe" that it should not, or "believe" that it should be provided under the current cost regime, the facts, as provided by the majority of Professional Controllers and Administrators, do not support your beliefs.
However, if you wish to prove the majority wrong, you are welcome to provide an actual cost-benefit analysis that will support your argument.
Amatuerish statements such as "well, they do it in the United States" or "surely you agree" or "I believe it should be thus" ... just don't cut it any more in a modern business world, relying on minutely refined budgets, safety management systems and risk management models.