Replies

You've asked two separate questions in one sentence.

would you be agreeable to allowing the dead ... to be just set aside and dragged off to some pit as they decompose?

Right now, at the most expensive and developed hospitals in the United States, the dead are set aside immediately in refrigerators until their families call for the body. Insurance has nothing at all to do with this, and your horrific image is a silly polemic trick.

And, if that is the case, would you be agreeable to allowing...the dying to be just set aside and dragged off to some pit as they decompose?

What to do with dying people who want free medical services is a hard problem. No question that since universal insurance, MUCH more money is spent in hospitals in the last week of life that was the case before.

The directive from most families is, "do everything!"

I'm not sure that you should be able to steal from your neighbors to get "everything" done, especially if, as in your question, the beggar in question is really dying.

Decomposition occurs after death and is not relevant to this part of your question.

I think you may have missed the implications of my question. The question I asked was in response to a reply that argued against mandatory health care insurance and argued against the government delivering universal healthcare. So the question that was asked, in a graphic way, what does society do with all of those who would have no insurance and hence, no health care or medical treatment? Does our society tolerate walking over the sick and dying? Or, do we need to do what is required to allow for some form of medical care for all?

Then, if one is of a conservative mindset, do we do what is required to make those who can pay do so and offer a minimal level of coverage for a minimal fee for those who ordinarily would be priced out?

When a conservative denies personal responsibility in the name of freedom I just ask the question, then would you wish to be left on the sidewalk in sickness convinced your argument is correct?