Individual responsibility vs. Governmental obligation

A fundamental issue that divides liberals and conservatives in this country, as well as the global public health community, is the question of what expectations we should place on individuals to be responsible for their own health (either through insurance or behavior), and what obligations the government has to ensure a basic level of health for its people. Going even deeper into its core, this issue also involves a discussion about a capitalistic vs. socialistic point of view -- the emphasis on free market and competition in capitalistic ideology deems it inevitable that some people will be left out in the cold, while pure socialism is more concerned with providing equal services to all, with the caveat that those with the desire and means to purchase enhanced products are not able to do so. In the U.S., we obviously have a heavily capitalistic leaning, with a market absence of the social solidarity that exists in many European health systems. Yet we can safely argue that our health care system has evolved beyond the era of social Darwinism in recognition that it is both ethically and practically unacceptable to systematically preclude the poor and disadvantaged from health care. The thorny issue, then, perhaps lies in the balance. How do we, conservatives and liberals, compromise to ensure that people have an incentive to contribute towards society in return for health care benefits, to take care of their own health in order to avoid doctors' visits, whilst still providing a basic level of care for those who are disadvantaged due to factors out of their control, such as cycles of poverty and poor education? How can public health causes promote both self-care (exercise, healthy eating, safe-sex education) and provide services to keep people safe and healthy (needle exchange programs, condom distribution)?