[CamperBob2]

Here's one way to think about health care in particular: the money being "stolen" from you has no intrinsic value. It's a number in a computer somewhere. If you were truly alone in the world it would have no value at all. So its value comes from an implied consensus of sorts, one that exists because the surrounding society provides infrastructure ranging from national defense to roads to law and contract enforcement to communications regulation to weather forecasting to basic scientific research to public health to ... whatever.

It happens that most advanced societies consider the widespread availability of medical care to be a similar force multiplier, something that enables every individual in the society to produce more and earn more and reach their full economic potential.

Free-market solutions to health care are problematic because there's nothing free about a market that everyone is forced to participate in by virtue of being alive. Likewise, private insurance models make little sense when every insured customer is virtually guaranteed to file expensive claims at one point or another.

Consequently health care is widely considered a valid area for governmental involvement and taxation. Yes, the money for public health care is "stolen" from you, but again, there is a widespread consensus that the economy that you participate in is healthier as a whole because of that. Just like public subsidies for many other things that many/most people agree are important but that fall outside what conventional markets do well at providing. In a society that didn't attend to such needs, you might have more money from a numeric standpoint, but it would be worth less.

Obviously there are weak points in this argument from a libertarian perspective, but it's very hard to convince people that it's without any merit at all.