The right to health care

And one's responsibility for taking care of one's health--

One has a duty to take care of one's body and one's health; both for one's own sake, and for the sake of others and for the community at large. Sin taxes may not be unjust, because those who engage in vicious behaviors that are detrimental to their health put on an additional burden to the "health care system." Moreover, their behavior should be discouraged, since they are making themselves physically unfit members of society.

Libertarians may believe that government should not legislate to curb bad behaviors, but traditional conservatives and Catholics [should] believe differently? This however does not give the government license to micromanage or to replace the judgment of the individual with rules that cannot but be general and thus fail to take into account different individual cases. For example, in the case of temperance, who else but the individual can judge whether one has eaten enough? Who can determine what suffices? What law can possibly substitute for prudence's governing of a particular appetite? Better knowledge of nutrition can help prudence, but can guidelines and regulations replace prudence with respect to eating, the drinking of alcohol, and so on?

Even if one does not "own" one's body, as the libertarians may believe, this does not mean that it is owned by someone else (except, perhaps, God). Similarly, that a citizen is a part of a whole and, as a member, has duties to the community does not entail a state being totalitarian.

A community may have an interest in the bodily well-being of its members, since those members are not mere private individual but are members of that community. (They are not tools for some abstract public good, but they nonetheless contribute to each other's flourishing.) Still, the primary responsibility of maintaining health fall on the citizen.(Those who are under the authority of another because they are incapable of exercising authority over themselves will also have their health supervised?)

For the sake of the following discussion, I'll assume that there is some right to health care (I am not convinced that there is):

If one has a right to health care, can it also be said that one has a duty to maintain it? If an individual fails to take care of his health, and is culpable, can his share of health care be reduced? How can he be held responsible for his actions if the state intervenes to make him healthier? Unless he is to shoulder a greater financial burden for his health in the future? Similarly, does a right to health care give the state a right to manage his life and ensure that he does not become a drain on public resources?

It seems to me that health cannot be regulated (that is to say, transgressions cannot be punished) except after an individual fails to take proper care of himself; either he gets sick because of lifestyle choices (eating too much) or he fails to attain some fitness standard (for example, as a member of the militia). What sort of positive incentives to stay healthy are possible, other than health itself?

Conversely, if the government is responsible for health care expenditures and makes payment out of the public treasury, how can it not require that people live up to their responsibility and avoid bad habits? How can it not punish (not necessarily with rationiong) those who make poor decisions regarding their body and health? How can it not distinguish between those who are afflicted with illness through no fault of their own and those who are responsible for their bad health? Would it not be unjust for the government to pay for the care of those who do not take care of themselves with taxes on those who are responsible?

As for the obesity epidemic, what if it can be shown that it is largely due to bad nutritional guidelines put forth by the government and other experts?

Miscellaneous links:
http://www.naturalmoney.org/short.html
http://www.naturalmoney.org/full-theory.html