First, the actual policies that aim at providing universal healthcare including cost-cutting measures of one kind or another. These measures, by their very nature, involve restricting what kind and how much medical care a person can receive and when they can receive it. The politically loaded term is "rationing". The State is going tell you what you can and cannot buy with their money. The politically loaded term is "death panel". Neither of which I, personally, see anything wrong with. But since policies designed to establish universal health care tend to involve taxing people I can certainly see how some would see it as a expansion of society's discretion regarding life and health.

Second and more important: these aren't symbols for abstract ideas about political philosophy. They are actual policies that are created by real governments and implemented by actual people. Any justification for either of them --regardless of one's terminal values-- will involve a complex synthesis of information from a wide set of domains. A position on universal healthcare, for instance, involves thinking about incentives for individuals, doctors, pharmaceutical companies, hospitals etc. E.g. what happens to prices when the person receiving the good isn't footing the bill and what happens to behavior when the actor isn't paying for the consequences of that behavior. If there are cost lowering measures: how do you determine what to pay for or who do you trust to determine it? What will the effect of these measures be on experimental procedures and will this harm innovation? If the country needs to borrow to pay for health care what will the effect be on the country's economy? What about all the other ways to spend that money?

Drone warfare involves different complex questions like: what counts as a combatant in an unconventional, asymmetrical war? Does killing terrorists decrease terrorism or increase it by making more and angrier terrorists? To what extent does judicial review undermine the secrecy, security and timeliness of a military response to intelligence? To what extent does the precedent set by the policy alter existing legal protections and is this change good of bad? What about the psychological impact of the persistent fear of an unexpected drone strike? What about the change in incentives involved in fighting wars where one side doesn't risk loss of life?

And so on. There is little reason to expect the answers of many of these issues and questions to be correlate. The only way to be particularly surprised that someone supports both these positions is if you understand these positions in an entirely symbolical way. I understand that most people choose their political positions mostly for signaling one thing or another and than just find ways to answer these questions in a way that is congruent that position. But you definitely shouldn't be that perplexed by someone who doesn't.