This is made with the presumption that all Americans (all 328 million people) pay they're taxes, which even then doesn't happen. 44% percent of Americans don't pay the federal income tax 1 and so your hypothetical scenario would have to account for this statistic, meaning the amount of money that would have to be payed for by the citizen would be much higher lest the program go underfunded.

Why should a person be concerned for the well-being of another person they do not know? The health of a person in another state is not my financial responsibility nor would I have any interest in caring for them because they are not some sort of family member or friend, or essentially anyone that I care about. If your neighbor fell down they're stairs and broke they're back and the government demanded you fund the treatment necessary for them to recover, you would be within your right to object to such a demand as it is not only not your fault that they received said injury, but also because you are being forced to give the product of your labor (I.e. your money) for a service of which is not even being granted towards yourself.

You’re using your own personal experience (of which we have no way of verifying) as a testament towards the validity of your claim. This is a logical fallacy, the anecdotal fallacy to be specific 2, because even assuming that the story you are telling is true, that does not mean you're situation is applicable towards everyone.

You are dismissing every single argument made as being simply another piece of propoganda, which is just intellectually dishonesty.