The personal responsibility argument as applicable to health care is bull shit. It doesn't hold up to even the most superficial scrutiny.
You raise some good points -- buying a no-deductible insurance plan that covers everything for a healthy 25 year old who has never had any health issues and paying the same rate as an unhealthy 60 year old does not make financial sense. However, it doesn't have to be that way. A catastrophic-only health insurance plan for a 25-year old with no health issues and $10k deductible should be dirt cheap. But that plan would only cover catastrophic issues, not dental visits or annual checkups. Sure, the cost of the health insurance would go up over time, but so would the risk that the insurer would have to pay out a claim. That's fair. Over time, the person would have had the opportunity to save up for his or her own medical costs. That would be considered personal responsibility.
The lucky people who have done well in life just don't realize how lucky they are...
The Elizabeth Warren types that try to discredit all successful people as simply being lucky really annoy me. Maybe you were born with a large inheritance and maybe you did not have to do anything in your life to earn your wealth, but not everyone was as lucky as you. For most people, success comes as a byproduct or sacrifice, delayed-gratification, and substantial risk.
Lets put it like this. Separate out the top 10% of earners and give them their own country. What will happen?
Supply and demand would not die. At some wage, people would be willing to perform the shitty jobs, but more likely they would try to figure out a way to automate as much of the shit jobs as possible. Higher wages encourage automation because potential cost savings from automation increase with wage.
The rest of the county, the 80% or 70% who is poor will do just fine if given their own country.
If that was true, there would be no 3rd world countries. Standards of living would not vary greatly from one area to another. I suspect that culture and historically access to natural resources has the greatest influence over that.
Technology companies wouldn't be who they are without scores of poor people buying up cell phones and cell phone plans.
Who is forcing them to buy those cell phones? If I was poor, I would not have a cell phone. I'd buy an old cell phone, not pay for service, and rely on wifi-calling.
Companies like Walmart rely on government subsidies for their poor employees so they get to pay them less.
That's true. But it comes back to supply and demand. What do you propose doing? Maybe Walmart should pay all employees $20. Fine. What would happen? Walmart might as well hire college graduates since there is enough college-educated labor at that rate and then focus on automation. All cash registers could be automated checkout like Amazon's Fresh store in Seattle. That's where things are going.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-...ikes-has-cost-works-14mm-hours-year-6700-jobs
We can talk about the way things should be all day, but it has no effect on what will happen. The laws of economics will ultimately prevail.