Here's the thing I agree people should not be refused healthcare. But how do we go about getting everyone the care they need while at the same time having everyone contribute.
Universal, single-payer coverage. If other nations can do it, we can do it. If we can "afford" highways for all of us to drive on and schools to educate our kids, we can afford healthcare for everyone who needs it.
This is an easy problem to solve when you only worry about getting everyone the care they need and not about having everyone contribute. Because once you agree that everyone must contribute, you have to determine how much they contribute. And every time you have someone who can't meet their contribution you have a "lackie" (from your quote below).
The problem is you can't. There are always going to be the lackies that take the benefit and don't contribute. That's my problem.
Luckily the "problem" at hand is one of perception and not reality. When you view every transaction as having a winner and a loser and every citizen as either a giver or taker.... you will see this "problem" everywhere you look.
Riddle me this. When someone buys a big life insurance policy and then dies in accident, who is the winner and who is the loser? Insurance company or the beneficiary?
Surely you are not proposing an "insurance" system where we all contribute more than we get back in benefits. What would be the point? We can't all be givers, you know.
Who are the "lackies" in the current (medicaid + ACA) system. Is it anyone on medicaid? Or is it also those in the lowest income (highest subsidy) pool covered by the ACA? Or does it include any family getting a subsidy under the ACA (which includes those all the way up to 400% of the poverty line)? Or are none of those lackies as long as they can actually afford the premiums? Are they lackies if they fall behind and miss one payment? Or must they miss multiple payments?
Or is a "lackie" not determined by what income level one is at, but whether he believes that he's deserving of the subsidy towards his premium. Or to be a lackie does he have to hold the opinion that his subsidy should be even greater than it is? If merely holding a belief like that isn't sufficient to make one a lackie, surely it is enough if someone takes active steps, planning, precautions so that his income is at a level that gets him the biggest subsidy within his reach. I just hope there are no "lackies" lurking on this site where they may learn to "game the system" by hearing some of us discuss strategies for maximizing ACA subsidies in ER. Sometimes we discuss things like that when we aren't talking about maximizing our tax deductions and credits or "minimizing our tax" burden by how we allocate across tax-deferred vs tax free accounts.
I'm just glad to be rich enough that I'm "minimizing my tax burden" rather than "chasing a handout", like a lackie.