Firstly, 95% of what has been said in the last two posts is ridiculously irrelevant. Seriously, quit the pseudo-trolling. It's not fun. It only requires one mature individual to ignore an irrelevant remark to nip it in the bud.

Quote Originally Posted by Sasquatch View Post
It alone provides us with them because it restricts the right of private businesses to provide them.
Not true. Private businesses would not produce streetlights and other services because of the 'free rider' principle. One can't distinguish who needs to pay for the use of such services, so they are provided from our tax money - something the government alone (not private businesses or individuals) has a mandate to do. Roads may be made toll roads, but this is an exception.

Just because it seems implausible doesn't mean it's not an applicable comparison. I mean really, I'd like an answer -- if somebody forces you to give them money, then does good things with it -- things you may actually want them to do -- did they steal your money, or did they not?
It's a comparison, but it is not an accurate or appropriate one. A thief takes their money for their own purposes. Do you have evidence to suggest that thieves give back to the people from whom they steal? Yes, both thieves and the government may take our money, but from a functionalist perspective it is not taken under the same principle. Look at the result, not the intermediary. Government provides an unbelievably large range of neccessary services, whereas thieves do not. Thus, how can you say it is the same thing? It's like saying sport is a religion (I just wrote an essay on this); they look the same, with rituals, icons, rules, etc., but they have profoundly different purposes. One spiritual, the other earthly. Just as much energy is invested into each, but sport will never become an actual religion. Just as taxation will never constitute stealing, no matter how much you frame it as such.

Since when does mob rule apply? When does the will of the majority get to trample individual rights?
Mob rule? It's called a democracy. If the majority decides to do one thing, but one person says no, then the majority gets precedence. If the majority calls for lower taxes across the board, then a candidate with that agenda will come into power. If the majority call for higher marginal tax rates on the rich, and tax relief for the poor, then, again, this will be reflected in democratic institutions.

How do you know? Maybe he's completely broke and he's using the money to buy food for his family. Maybe he's a drug addict, and without a score, he'll go into shock from withdrawals and die.
Oh, so healthcare is neccessary and you acknowledge it requires money? Looks like us "liberals" are getting somewhere. The government takes money in a different manner from robbers, and it is certainly neccessary (provision of services amidst the free rider principle). The US government does not tax people who earn less that $21,000 p.a., correct? And taxes more (proportionately, and thus literally) on wealthy people, as they can afford to pay more. Are robbers this discriminating, or do they just take the least secured money they can find? They do not steal from those who are 'more able' to be stolen from.

States have a legal monopoly on power -- and we know that nothing bad has ever happened as a result of the government having unrestricted power, right?
Of course bad things can happen, but much worse things would happen if everyone had a legal mandate to use force. It's called the police. They use force when neccessary (in theory). If we policed ourselves, violence would be much more out of control. As a side note, who or what funds the police?

It's evil to NOT give your money away? I can see selfish, maybe, but evil? It's evil for somebody to spend their own money as they see fit?
Personally, I equate selfishness to evilness. Among other things. It's evil to buy a Mercedes-Benz and drive it past a starving person, yes, absolutely, at least as far as I'm concerned. Your views differ, but c'est la vie.

Health insurance is not a right. It's certainly not a Constitutional right. Even if you consider healthcare to be a right, this "right" is not restricted by not having health insurance.
I understand it is not a Constitutional right. Heck, it's not a constitutional right in New Zealand (our sorry excuse for a "constitution" consists of one document in two languages with a very poor translation between them, and a mix of random laws and precedents spread over a wide variety of issues - the right to healthcare, to my knowledge, is not one of them). Thing is, we still have public healthcare provision, along with (almost?) all of the non-US, industrialised world.

If one does not have health insurance in the USA, they must eventually front up with money, correct? Yes, you provided details about how they can apparently pay very little, and how you will not be refused treatment, but there's still a cost involved somewhere, correct? In addition, it's apparent that it can impact your credit rating. Ouch. That surely means that access to healthcare in the United States is at least somewhat limited to the poor.

Now, acknowledging, but disregarding the fact that it is not 'enshrined' in your precious Constitution, can you please justify, on moral grounds, the omission of healthcare as a 'right' of every citizen of your fair land?

I will attempt here my own explanation for why it should be considered a right, even if it is not expressly included in official documents, such as the NZ or US "Constitutions".

Goods such as flash cars, mansions, and PS3s are luxury items. Expensive, unnecessary, and limited to those lucky wealthy enough to have (monetary) access to them. They are not for everyone, and thus there is no "PS3 Stamps" programme of which I am aware. However, goods and services such as basic shelter, food, clothing,and basic education are neccessary, or at least deemed neccessary enough, in our society. If these things, then why not healthcare for people without insurance? I say again: It is a right, as it is neccessary. I agree that people have to work to earn privileges: the Mercedes-Benz to drive past poor people, the PS3, etc. But why should people be forced to work (and this doesn't just mean a job, I use it in the same way you would use "responsibility" or "choices") in order to receive heath care, when it is just as neccessary as shelter, food, clothing, and education? In fact, it is probably more important than education. Restricting access to it (through price; i.e. private businesses/profit seeking) impacts on people's right to a quality of life befitting their place in First World society.

Most people deserve to live exactly how they live, be they rich or poor. I don't deserve to live in a mansion because I didn't earn it, and I don't expect to. On the other hand, I don't deserve to live in a box, because I earned much more than that. If I made bad decisions, squandered my money, screwed myself over to get fired from my job, etc., etc., then I would deserve a much lower quality of life than I enjoy now.
People can earn the privilege of living in a mansion, but living in a box (or lacking food, shelter, sanitation, healthcare) is so inhumane, that it can never be justified. Are poor people animals to you? Maybe they were lazy. Maybe they didn't work hard. Maybe they were just victims of circumstance. But if that means they are suddenly forced to live in a box on the side of the road, I ask what kind of society do you seek? Certainly not a compassionate one.