worth noting that

[patanjali.purpose]

Whose obligation is it to secure adequate health care for those without it? There are several reasons to believe that the obligation rests with the federal government. First, the obligation to secure a just distribution of benefits and burdens across society is a general societal obligation. Second, the federal government is the institution society employs to meet society-wide distributive requirements. It has the capacities to finance a hugely expensive program for guaranteed adequate health care. The government's taxing power also allows the burden of financing health care to be spread across society and not to depend on the vagaries of how wealthy or poor a state or local area may be. The government also has the power to coordinate health care programs across local and state boundaries. This would reduce inefficiencies that allow people to fall between the cracks of the patchwork of local and state programs, and ensure that there are not great differences in the minimum of health care guaranteed to all in different locales.

If we are one society, then the level of health care needed for all citizens should not vary in different areas because of political and economic contingencies. It is worth noting that food stamp programs and housing subsidies, also aimed at basic necessities, similarly are largely a federal responsibility. These are reasons for the federal government having the obligation to guarantee access to health care. It could provide this care itself, or it could supply vouchers to be used in the health care marketplace. How access should be secured-and to what extent market mechanisms ought to be utilized-is a separate question.

Any idea why does author mention "food stamp programs and housing subsidies"?

[Jim@StratusPrep]

Do draw a comparison that the gov't already funds certain basic necessities.