If we believe that healthcare is a basic human right and that the state should therefore provide it to everyone equally and free of charge, then as a matter of

If we believe that healthcare is a basic human right and that the state should therefore provide it to everyone equally and free of charge, then as a matter of practicality (money is finite), we must put some restrictions on the ways people can put themselves in danger. The more people get hurt in preventable accidents, the less money there is to treat everyone else, even if their problems weren't preventable. Doing something reckless is therefore harmful to others by definition. On the other hand, if we believe that people should be allowed to hurt themselves if they can find someone to cover their medical bills, then the question becomes where do we draw the line? Riding a motorcycle without a helmet seems like a reasonable one. What about with a helmet? Motorcycles are inherently dangerous. But all road traffic is more dangerous than trains. Should people need a personal health insurance add-on to drive a car? What about eating unhealthy food? Even if the line is drawn clearly, now only the rich can afford to do certain dangerous things and everyone else can't. Due to money shifting into the private sector, less and less will be covered by state insurance, making things that are allowed even today (like many sports) to be off-limits to anyone middle-class and lower. Now we've turned a situation where everyone has reasonable but equal limits to one where the rich have no limits and everyone else has unreasonably strict limits.