Are the limits of what best possible society we can imagine obtaining really so bounded?<p>There is no inherent reason why anyone&#x27;s health choices need to be anyone else&#x27;s business if we were to suddenly awake and find ourselves delighted by the existence of universal public healthcare. We decide as a society what is up for discussion. We can actually agree to respect everyone&#x27;s personal freedom to make their own choices, and reject allowing John&#x27;s choice to eat a steak now and again to be any of Mary&#x27;s business. After all, we&#x27;re going to do the same when we tell John he has to shut the fuck up about Mary&#x27;s choice to consult with her physician about an abortion. And, of course, we&#x27;ll agree that neither John nor Mary gets to say anything about Phil&#x27;s third visit to rehab this year.<p>Instead, we steer the national discussion away from finger-pointing, privacy-invading, witch-hunting bullshit, and focus it toward elevating a national ideal of living healthy, responsible, active lives. Sure, there are going to be choices made that don&#x27;t fit the ideal, but we prize personal freedom. We equally protect everyone. We equally care for everyone. Why? Because there are people who eat red meat who never have triple-bypass surgery; people who smoke who never die of smoking complications; people who drink who never have alcohol-related health issues; people who never eat meat who wind up with some other health issue. We can take care of each other because we want to create and inhabit a great society.<p>Sure, it may be a pipe dream we never see realized in our own lifetimes. But it ought not be so difficult to imagine alternatives, recognize some valuable principles, and advocate for realizing those principles because they inherently respect and value people as co-citizens in a shared society.