In a moral sense, we are on the same page, mostly. Because while I see no moral or legal obligation to help those in greater need even if I have the means to do it, I do find personal value in helping others and I do think it's a good idea to not be a jackass and raise prices in that instance. One form of help can be charging a sensible price for a product, or selling it at cost to those in need. Or even giving it away, if you so choose.
That said, when we talk about wealth inequality and how to "fix" it, we're talking about creating a legal right to other people's time and money, often in a roundabout way like progressive taxation. That idea - a legal right to other people's time and money - I am vehemently opposed to, because no system of governance has ever been developed by man that successfully separated property rights and individual rights from the individual to give them to the crowd.
Using health care: The mere fact that someone else has the ability to help you does not give you a right to that help. Even if your life is at stake, you have no right to the time and labor of others, no matter how small a cost it would be to them. People argue that's wrong, and that there is a fundamental right to goods and services like health care. But I don't see it. Rights aren't rights just because you want them to be, or because they are nice things to do, or because they'd be a good idea in theory, or because they are the "right" thing to do (even though you and I seem to agree on what the right thing to do is). Rights aren't need-based - rights are shields against intrusions by other people. Rights allow you to do what you want with your time, so long as your exercise of rights doesn't actively interfere with someone else's right to do the same. They are defensive, not offensive, weapons. So the doctor, for instance, has a right to not provide a service without payment (notwithstanding oaths and such that they impose on themselves, for better or for worse!), but a patient does not have a right to force the doctor to provide the service just because he needs it. Otherwise, what is the doctor but a slave?
I wonder what "basics." The portion of the population that is starving, dying in childhood, or living without a home is at an all-time low for human history. (Approximately...I mean, might have been lower in August 2015, who knows? But we're close.) As we both said before, some of our poorest have it better than kings of old. So the "barely making it by" and "needing assistance" today, while certainly not living an ideal life, are experiencing the benefits of the system that generated wealth inequality, rather than being punished by wealth inequality. The lower classes do not experience all possible benefits, like the latest cancer treatment that can only be paid for by the wealthiest .001%, but they get benefits like x-rays that would have been obscenely expensive decades ago. And someday, the cancer treatment will be available to all, too. And by that time, something better will be developed that will be unavailable to the poorest among us. In the meantime, as I said above, nobody has a "right" to the treatment. They must pay for the service or rely on the charitable giving of others, which I would greatly encourage based on the idea that helping others has value. NOT based on the idea that helping others is necessary or obligatory or forced by government intervention.
I think my two cents are paid and we should probably let this thread get back on track