And, hk1, this comment of yours:  

"While compassion is indeed a noble endeavor, prompting eloquent and lengthy speeches, it's manifestation"s cost eventually must be paid. Not a dime of which is provided by the government, by rather by the governed."

I don't get why or how that's some sort of problem.

EVERYTHING provided by the government is provided by the governed.  What is the problem with the government providing something compassion dictates is needed?  What is the problem with the governed sharing the burden of that compassion for its citizens?  In a responsible and preventive way, no less?

Your beef is that you don't think it is the "governed's" responsibility to provide for the whole.

To me, that equals, "I'm gonna get mines, and give nothing back."

That type of thinking, in my mind, is wrong because it eventually leads to a failed society.

Get all the benefit, but pay no burden?  Take but give nothing back?  In the case of healthcare, others die - so what?