["Do not be deceived by a wolf in sheep's clothing! Villains and devils are masters of deception and the claim or assertion to own the life (body), liberty (action) of another person is foul villainy indeed!"]
A slave is not free because her 'kindly', 'well-intentioned' master, permits her to grow a large garden and to keep the produce for the slave's own use; the master of course, permits this small semblance of liberty, because it relieves him, of some of the burden of feeding his slaves! If only his swine would grow their own food!
The 'kindly' master upon consideration of his human-livestock, would probably wistfully wish that even his swine would slaughter themselves! After all, do not his slaves keep themselves busy, arguing between themselves, who is more free, the house-slaves or the field-slaves? If only the master's swine would keep each other so in check, perhaps he would not have so often to put the slaves to mending the swines' fences!
The 'kindly' master is not a saint because he offers 'free' health-care to his slaves; for the master only pays the doctor, to tend to the needs to his slaves, because he intends to reap a greater value from the slave's health and toil in the future.
Once the master makes a claim on the life of another person, we may not, after that fact, assume any good intentions of the master; for all those supposedly well intentioned deeds, must benefit the master, more than the slave.
Therefore, we may not assume that the State has any good intentions for the health or welfare of its 'citizens', whatsoever; for the State always stands to reap a greater harvest by the provision of any aspect of the 'general-welfare' than the cost of the supposed 'benefit', as the slave-master has by paying a doctor to tend to his slaves.
The slave-master would become pauper and then beggar, if the slave master would give to the slaves an equal portion, than he could expect to receive from his slaves, for there would therefore be no profit or increase to the master and yet he would have to expend his energies in returning to his slaves an equal value. So too, the State would collapse if it was forced to provide an equal 'benefit' than it could get in return for its extortion; rather, it is the economic incentive of State and slave master alike, to provide as little as possible to their human-chattel (and call that pittance 'altruism') and to attempt to reap as much from the human-chattel's labor as possible (and call that labor their 'duty' and 'obligation' as recompense for the master's or the State's 'good intentions').