You are correct in saying that rationale, by itself, does not require universal coverage. 90% (or 75% or whatever) would suffice. The same is true for the parallel rationale for universal public education. There remain, even in our highly industrialized society, plenty of menial jobs. There is (by the same logic) no need to teach those people to read or write.

But your argument implies that without health insurance – offered as an argument in favor of some sort of public, national health program – that I will be at greater risk and surrounded by sick individuals and unable to work because of rampant illness among my coworkers. Well, poppycock I say. I am already surrounded by sick people, and my work is affected by the occasional illnesses of my coworkers, both of which are occurring when 90% of the United States population has some form of health insurance, and will continue with or without health insurance for all.

there are plenty of each today when so few people don’t have health insurance

By what standard is 50 million people, “so few”.

As am I, but acknowledge it is no more than a thought experiment and that we will never know. Thanks for the clarification, the self-interest argument is different (than what I read in your previous comment) and valid. We can argue whether the proposed plans would fix the problem of ill people on buses and at work – there are plenty of each today when so few people don’t have health insurance, I doubt that would change much with the implementation of Obamacare.

What if it is partly or even wholly expensive due to government intrusion? Even if at the end it’s from health insurance companies being venal…the government gives them the cover TO be venal. State insurance boards decide mandates, which can make the coverage cheap or much more expensive.

Is government going to do anything about defensive medicine? Anyone pretending it’s not a big deal is an idiot or an academic who doesnt’ take care of patients in the real world.

What about the very structure of health insurance? A government-put-in-place boondoggle from World War 2, because of businesses looking for a way to get around wage-and-price controls. And another wartime measure left in place.

Medicaid and Medicare distort the market. Government boards that allocate where hospitals can be build and how many MRI’s can be in proximity to each other. That distorts the market.

I can name 40 or 50 or 100 other ways the government screws up the market with intrusion and adds to the enormous cost.

I’m too tired but there are many way to hold down costs even without rationing, and one that gives people say in their own lives. but then, people have to turn around and have some responsibility, and then say, not use the ER for a cheap (i.e. free) pregnancy testing area or a bandaid station for paper cuts (and both are very, very true.)

I want everyone to be able to have decent care, but it is never FREE care, and cannot be. But we can make it more affordable so more can GET care. But they might have to pay SOMETHING, and be partly and reasonably responsible for a portion of it.

Much more to write on the subject. Suffice it to say, govt. should act as a guard over the whole thing, but let entrepreneurship take over.

I guess to be precise I should say that I don’t care if you or anyone else can afford health care and reject the notion that I am responsible for anyone’s care but my own.

Really?

You don’t care whether the guy sitting next to you on the bus has antibiotic-resistant TB? You don’t care whether the kids in your child’s class are vaccinated? You don’t care whether your co-worker drops dead of a heart attack, in the middle of your joint project?

Sure you do.

To pick an analogy, you subsidize free public education, through high school, for all your neighbours. Not only that, but you mandate that their kids actually attend school.

Why?

One need only look back to what the country was like, before the advent of universal public education. Most of the population was illiterate, fit only for the most menial of occupations, and everyone was poorer, as a result. You can’t run a prosperous, modern industrial society, without an educated workforce. So you are (or ought to be) more than willing to make the public investment in human capital, which is required for you to be able to enjoy the fruits that our technological society provides.

The argument for ensuring that your fellow citizens are not too sick, to be productive members of society, runs pretty much the same way.

I’ve been asking this question and listening for an answer for a long time (I think I am quite a bit older than you) and have yet to hear an answer that stands up to even moderate objective scrutiny. It is clear why I am responsible for myself. It is clear, through my marriage vows and contract, why I am responsible for my spouse. It is clear, through parentage, that I am responsible for my children. It is not clear why I have an obligation for you or anyone else.

I’m genuinely curious to hear your reply, but I will note that this is not part of any other debate on health care of which I am aware – no one asks this question, everyone assumes or accepts that they must do something; which I find fascinating.