Depends if you're a believer in the "genetic lottery" (to use John Rawls's term) or not. If you believe that things like catastrophic accidents or health condi

Depends if you're a believer in the "genetic lottery" (to use John Rawls's term) or not. If you believe that things like catastrophic accidents or health conditions have a large amount of "luck" involved in them, then morally speaking it's more fair to spread the cost of them out over the whole population rather than concentrating it in whoever happens to get unlucky enough to develop leukemia or get hit by a bus. Of course, health is something that people have some amount of control over, but exactly how much is obviously a big open question. Unsurprisingly, people who are on the "winning" side of the lottery (be it health, talent, or success in things like sports and business) tend to under-estimate how much luck has to do with it, over-estimate their own contribution, and thus also over-estimate how much someone else's actions have to do with their "loss" in that lottery.