law-of-freedom

Here's the problem.  People make bad decisions.  They don't save for retirement or for a rainy day.  They spend their money foolishly.  This is not necessarily because they have poor moral character, but because they don't know any better.  Then when they get into a bad situation, we feel that if we don't help them, we are being cruel/inhumane.  So when disaster strikes, we jump in to help, even if that means we individually or as a society suffer.  So we end up paying for other people's bad decisions.  To do what is best for humanity in the long run, we have two choices as I see it:

(1) Tell everyone up front that, "If you make bad decisions, you will suffer the consequences, and as a society we will not help you," and stick to our guns even when they come crying to us later!  I don't know if this is politically sellable (something you can convince the majority of Americans of), but it might be if we make people aware that the only other viable option is to...
(2) Mandate good decisions.  More grumbling up front, but better for everyone in the long run.  Of course this assumes that the person making the rules actually knows what is a good decision.  And if you would rather take the risk because you believe you can take better care of yourself than doctors and insurance companies, why shouldn't you be able to?  Maybe sign a contract saying that you won't beg for a handout when things go bad.

It seems to me that right now you have people arguing for improved healthcare, but they don't want to change their own behavior, just the behavior of the "greedy" companies.  There are legitimate ways to regulate the greed of corporations, but we will still, somehow, have to pay for what we get.