Well, I'm not terribly interested in discussing minutiae of nationalized health care, I only use it as an example of an initiative, generally supported by the left, that represents a gigantic growth in government.  Suffice it to say, though, that I do not favor nationalized health care, nor do I favor the status quo.

The mantra of the Right, that Government is always evil and always the enemy is an outdated notion from prior to the founding and flourishing of our new form of government. In a secular pluralistic democracy, wherein basic fundamental rights are guaranteed, Government is short-hand for "the people." So, given that, let's rework your statement. "Empower people over the people" is nonsensical. If there is oppression, that oppression belongs directly to "the people" who supported by voting and other methods to institute a given mandate. Arguing against a lifeless form called "government" misdirects blame (and praise) in an important way.

First, that is not "the mantra of the Right".  Conservatives aren't anarchists you know.  Conservatives are quite willing to accept government where it has a legitimate role.

But, more importantly:  You say government is "a lifeless form".  But, simultaneously, government is not merely an agent of the people.  After all, there is strong public support for, e.g., term limits - every time it has been proposed in a referendum at the state level, it has passed, and by overwhelming majorities.  But a Constitutional amendment for Congressional term limits has never been successful in Congress.  Why not?  And every time term limits was imposed by referendum at a state level, invariably, legislators tried to water them down.  Why?  The reason is simple: government is a separate entity, not identically equivalent to the will of the people.  Legislators, as a general rule, won't limit their own power unless they are restrained from doing so.  I believe this is the inherent wisdom encapsulated in the Constitution with its separation of powers and its enumeration of explicit powers entrusted to Congress.

Here is but another example: the bailout of GM.  There is strong public opposition to bailing out GM and yet the government is doing it anyway.  Why?  Here again government is not merely acting as an agent of the people.  I believe there are both benign and corrupt reasons for why the government is bailing out GM.  But, if government didn't have the power to bail out companies in the first place, we wouldn't have to speculate on any possible corruption.

But here is an even more profound point.  Even if we accept your premise that "government = the people", it is still not the case that "government = me" or "government = you".  A representative government can only represent the will of the majority, never the personal opinions of individual citizens.  So if we want to preserve individual liberty - the right of an individual to act according to his/her own preferences, which are distinct from the preferences of the majority - we can't let the will of the majority run amok.  The only way the majority can take away my or your liberty, other than through naked force, is through government, hence the concept of limited government.  I favor individual liberty over the will of the majority, because I don't believe the majority is capable of acting in my best interest as well as I can.  The majority's interests and mine don't always coincide, and it is no doubt the same for you.

So I apologize if I misstated your position earlier, but you did write "individuals, not governments, are best suited to determine the contours of their own lives" and also "I am for such terrible things as letting individuals, not governments, decide and regulate their own families and their own bodies."  So I hope you'll understand if I thought "empowering individuals over government" was a fair description of your position.

But, my original question still remains: How do you reconcile your support for something like nationalized health care with a belief that "individuals, not governments, are best suited to determine the contours of their own lives"?