Healthcare debate -- pros and cons

This healthcare debate has come down to an issue of how much government do we want in our lives. Those who want the government to take over and run healthcare in the US see in the models of Canada, France and the UK benign governmental programs that benefit all citizens and drive down the cost of healthcare for everyone. They start from the premise that healthcare is a "right" that fits in with the other rights granted US citizens by birth through the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. Others, myself included, see in this expression of healthcare as a right, a governmental usurpation of our right as individuals to decide what is in our best interest concerning healthcare. An example highlights the difference in these two positions. Under Obamacare each citizen will be required to purchase an insurance policy that will mandate what we must have as basic coverage. For sake of argument let's say I don't want or need prenatal and postnatal coverage, nor do I want or need annual physicals for family members and even for myself (who's to say I need an annual physical rather than a a biannual or so one?). But it's in the plan, I pay for this coverage whether I want it, or need it, because the government decides I must. Freedom of choice? Gone. So what's next? Freedom to bear arms? Freedom of speech? Freedom of travel? And so forth.