Why should health care not be govt-run, if the police and firefighters are?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

As a general rule, if you suffer a heart attack and the government does nothing, it doesn't mean that another person will suffer a heart attack as a result.

However, if your house is burning and no one comes to help you fight the fire, your neighbor might well suffer as a result.

Similarly if the police don't catch the crook who robbed you, he's free to rob others (until someone blows him away with a gun.)

That's the difference between health care and police and fire services.  Failure to provide adequate health care does not have the same degree of side effects on others that failure to provide adequate fire and police services do.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Not that I disagree with Lief, but to counter BRTD and Jake for the sake of argument, none of the things you guys listed are things you would really call 911 for, which is what I think Ernest was getting at.

The general idea of preventative care though is certainly valid in the long-run which is why I agree with Lief.

Exactly.  We need a robust public health system to deal with infectious diseases, but at the 911 emergency level, most health care does not have implications beyond the immediate patient, as police and fire emergencies do.