Couldn't agree more on that.

I'm wondering what you both would consider a proper level of government involvement in “health care,” as well as what role the government has in defining “health care.” It seems to me that some kind of involvement is inevitable.

Where should the lines be drawn? Should one group get to define as “health care” the taking of an innocent human life? And should the government enshrine that definition into law? It seems to me that this has already happened in every state that still allows abortion. And it seems to me that this is government involvement in the defining of “health care,” as well as the government's imposing that definition on a large portion of the population who disagrees.

In a Federal Republic such as ours, each state's government will make such laws based ostensibly upon what the majority of the citizens of those states desire. So, for example, I live in Illinois, one of the most liberal states with respect to abortion, and it may be that I will have to leave the state someday and move to a state in which the population and its government has values better aligned with my own. But, in any state, the government will inevitably be involved. I can see no way around it.

@KeithThroop I think the right place for government in health care is to 1) insure the providers are educated and trained well enough to practice; 2) establish minimum standards of care for ALL patients; 3) certify facilities that they are clean, staffed and functional for the services offered; 4) support the cost of services provided to indigent populations.