&gt; That’s very unlikely.
&gt; Any logical system based on the concept that human life is worth existing on its own (no matter what the person has contributed to society) automatically ends up with the necessary conclusion that things like subsidized healthcare are mandatory.<p>If you start solely from that premise: &quot;that human life is worth existing on its own (no matter what the person has contributed to society)&quot; you&#x27;re very unlikely even to reach <i>taxation</i> (a forced contribution to society) let alone forced subsidies or making anything mandatory. Most of government is based in the notion that someone&#x27;s only value is in what they contribute to society -- from &quot;tax-dodgers&quot; to &quot;benefit leeches&quot; the vernacular is all about the amount of cash that gets paid into the social coffers.<p>Much as I appreciate subsidised healthcare, it&#x27;s not an &quot;automatic conclusion&quot;. It is a negotiated compromise, and largely based on nationalism not the value of the individual (eg, the NHS came into existence post-war, as part of the national rebuilding. It&#x27;s beginnings very much relied on the war effort and large scale conscription having devalued individual freedom amongst the public).<p>It&#x27;s become more popular since then because it turns out to work pretty well as a system. Not so much from pure logic, as that healthcare gets more expensive over time (effectively, healthcare can exert a rent on people&#x27;s lives) and social control of healthcare is a way of putting a cap on its costs at the expense of those in healthcare who could charge much more (eg, watch the NHS junior doctors complaining about the contract changes).