This is not meant to be a comprehensive argument against government-run healthcare, but only to address a single potential outcome of such a system.
Suppose the Obama administration goes ahead and implements a single-payer, government run healthcare system. Taxpayers begin paying 100% of our national healthcare costs. Every citizen, regardless of their economic or health status is fully covered for whatever medical treatment they and their doctor(s) deem necessary.
Sounds great, you say. But what are the potential downsides? What about the further eroding of individual liberties and personal responsibility?
Already, "public health" advocates point to statistical studies that attempt to show the costs associated with "risky" behaviors, such as smoking tobacco, or drinking alcohol. With our current system of private insurance, such risky behaviors incur higher costs for those who choose to partake of them.
However, in a government-run system, these costs will need to be mitigated somehow, and it won't be long before some bureaucrat gets the brilliant idea to make a cost-benefit argument for banning risky behavior. They all follow the same formula: "X behavior costs us $X amount in health care costs, which would be recouped if it were banned."
This is already happening with the smoking bans around the country. Studies are being cooked up which purport to show massive reductions in heart attacks following implementation of smoking bans.
This is a slippery slope, and what begins with prohibition of socially-unacceptable behaviors will quickly escalate to other risky behavior.
Alcohol? Driving too fast? Skydiving? Bungee-jumping? Motorcycle riding? All of these are vulnerable to this line of argument.
This is corrosive even to the arguments supporting Abortion. "It's my body, I should be able to decide what to do with it" -- No it's not, not when the state is paying for the upkeep on that body.
And in the end, we have a massive expansion of the police state, and less freedom for everyone.
----------------
UPDATE:
From the DailyKos FAQ:
To Troll Rate something has exactly one meaning. When you Troll Rate something, as a trusted user, you are stating that the comment should be made invisible to all site users. You're saying that the comment is so bad -- so disruptive or damaging to the community -- that it isn't worth even a debate, but should be deleted from the discussion as being simply inflammatory, simply off-topic, or simply a lie. Remember that, because that is the only use of the troll rating. It is an editorial vote to delete a comment from the conversation. Conversely, there is one particular reason troll ratings should never be used: to express disagreement with a poster's opinion.