I take a more utilitarian approach than you (and yes, I recall you ranting about Bentham, but nothing of substance). A moral hazard already exists in that we aren't willing to watch people die on the street, yet before emergency care couldn't reject people that very thing would happen because there wasn't enough voluntary charity to cover or prevent it. Seeing that such a hazard existed, I weigh the cost and benefit of different systems and arrive at the conclusion that it can be appropriate to use what you would term coercive measures.
Life's about trade-offs, and behaving in an absolutist fashion in the face of such realities doesn't strike me as seeking freedom. It strikes me as obstinacy.
Bentham has nothing to do with it. Other than he put the state above individuals.
Your comment has nothing to do with moral hazard, and conflating we with the government or society with the government is wrong, you are also conflating personal values with the term moral hazard. Of course we aren't willing to watch people die on the street ( something that isn't happening anyway and is a strawman argument). It also avoids what I am alluding to with a subtle attack that if you are against this new state force and conscription you must want people to die, silly.
The problems you are so worried about was exasperated and in many instances created by the state. Going way back before the turn of the century (the previous century) and continuing on with mercantilist lobbying of doctors (Flexner report) the licensing scheme by the state and the universities, the price fixing, basically the involvement of government in free market medicine. At one time many more people had health care, through private lodges and charity, there was plenty of money for it.
So like I stated government used force to make the problems and then people want governemnt to use more force to solve it, which historically has never worked and has always caused more problems and more cries for more force.
Ultimately even if what you say is true, it is immoral to steal from one to give to another, and it is an absurdity to claim it is moral to do so.
