To the people having that "healthcare for everyone is bad for the gene pool" discussion: The people arguing that letting the "weak" survive and reproduce is a bad thing clearly don't get how natural selection works. They look at individuals, rather than the species as a whole. They also decide that a species is "better" if it consists of a few "strong" specimens, than many "weak" ones. While this could work, it's not "nature's ideal". Evolution has no goal. If it doesn't work, it dies out. Whatever works, works. How well it works is irrelevant, as long as it works well enough for the species to survive.
Humans, and other social animals as well (though not to the same extent), care for each other. This results in more individuals surviving. Yes, individuals that aren't "fit to reproduce" may do so, and pass "weak" genes on to the next generation, but that generation will be cared for as well. In fact, the number of humans who would survive alone (ie "viable specimens", by what seems to be some people's definition) is pretty damn low, but we are still one of the most successful species on the planet. This is because even those who are weak in one area (and would die without help to compensate for this shortcoming) can survive and use the good qualities they actually have. Someone with genes that cause cancer can still benefit society. Yes, he'll be a burden once that cancer breaks out, but until then, and afterwards if he's cured, he can benefit society with all the other qualities he has.
EDIT: Oh, on topic, I'm in the middle somewhere. Either extreme is bad. Capitalism means everyone's on their own, which creates a society that I wouldn't like to live in. Socialism, as has been said, breeds laziness. But it's perfectly possible to compromise.
