I don't listen to the radio often, but sometimes I surf through a few talk radio stations and a couple of sports stations on my drive to and from campus, if I neglect to bring a CD along. Today I heard a man trying to equate tax-funded health care services with tax-funded law enforcement, saying both "serve the public good" in essentially the same manner and at the same level. His intention, of course, was to spin coercive taxpayer funding of "universal health care" as something constitutional and moral. The host of the program made an effort to show the man his thinking error, but unfortunately missed the main difference between the two. It's very simple, so it's surprising that so many people should have so much trouble comprehending it. On the other hand, considering the distinct lack of intellectual sophistication (or even fundamental logical thinking skills) shown by the typical so-called liberal, it shouldn't be any surprise at all.
The only legitimate role of government is to protect from violation by others the rights of each individual to his or her life, liberty, and property. This is also the purpose and only legitimate role of law enforcement (and the military). Any law that extends beyond protecting these three rights is illegitimate and immoral.
Health care, on the other hand, is not intended, nor does it have the ability, to protect my rights from encroachment by others. At that most fundamental level, then, it is unrelated to law enforcement. The only connection between the two is that law enforcement is intended to protect my right to enter into free-will exchanges with others for health care services if I am unable or unwilling to provide them for myself.
Assuming that the members of law enforcement are honest men and women, law enforcement works directly to protect the true rights of every individual. Health care does not. The rights to one's life, liberty, and property are perfectly egalitarian. Health care needs, desires, and effectiveness vary greatly by individual. Every individual can enjoy his or her right to his or her life, liberty, and property equally and without violating the same rights of others. Coercive health care cannot. In fact, it requires the violation of fundamental rights.
As a reminder, here is a quote from Joel Skousen that I included previously in a post about the true nature of rights.
Fundamental rights are those rights to act, or to be, which all persons can do or possess simultaneously without compelling any other person to provide a service or tangible asset.
Legitimate government protects those rights, and leaves all else alone. That is the only "public good" government can or should serve. Doing anything else requires that the government force individuals, under threat of violence, to give up their own property. In other words, it requires the government to steal.