I view it as a personal responsibility, not the government's responsibility.

In America, it is traditionally viewed as a person's own responsibility. The idea being that if you didn't work, you didn't deserve healthcare.

I think this position is starting to fade (understatement).

I don't understand that option either. Presumably, that means it is a responsibility of the government to ensure that people have health care. If so, from whence is that responsibility derived? It would almost have to follow that it stems from the right of the people to have health care.

Alternatively, perhaps he meant that it is a responsibility of each person to ensure they have health care, but that does little to address the millions of people who would love to get health care, but can't possibly afford it, or who can't get health care because of a pre-existing condition. Are they shirking their responsibility because it isn't within the realm of possibility for them to obtain proper insurance?

A responsibility to yourself and those who rely on you.

McCain is not sticking to classical definitions but injecting a different term from a different sector.

Would those who believe like Cali and Barbara articulate how they believe hc magically became a right and who endowed it with such metaphysical preeminence.

With which I agree. But in the context of the question that doesn't make much sense. Maybe I'm getting hung up on the traditional context of this question: government involvement in providing or assuring health care. "Responsibility" adds a dimension that hasn't been there before, the individual's role in health care.

Poor kid with no insurance gets leukemia.

Treatment, if given, is highly successful, but expensive.

Society has moved and is moving to the position that this poor kid should not be allowed to die, but that it is for the common good that he be saved, at common expense.

Bad example. Expectations are different for kids. We don't expect kids to be responsible for much.

A person gets in a car crash and is going to die without medical attention. The person is rushed to the hospital. He doesn't have health insurance. He will and should be treated.

You're trying to use an exception to prove a rule. Not very impressive argumentation.

You're also using an all or nothing argument, i.e., there are some harsh side affects of pure markets, hence we should eliminate the market, throwing the baby out with the bathwater.