The problem with that is some of the untreated would spread disease. It also puts people in a very uncomfortable position is some situations, you either absorb the cost like we do now, or you have to live with leaving them to suffer and die on their own. All that because the person wants to shirk responsibility. Their "fist swinging" is not "stopping at my nose" so to speak.
Sometimes you work hard and you just can't afford as much as the next guy That's life.
I agree. I still think people should have assistance as required reaching a certain minimal standard of loving. But yea, some people will have a whole hell of a lot more than others, and that's the just the way it is.
Some folks get the short end of the stick.
Absolutely. That how it works. No matter what you are both lucky and unlucky. If you have serious health problems you are lucky because you get care, but still unlucky in general. If you don't have health issues, you were covered in case you did, and lucked out by being healthy. You were just "unlucky" because you didn't get much for your money.
So whoever has problems gets helped, and that someone could be you.
But back to my heart, if we lived more by the creed "He who does not work, shall not eat". some stuff would change quick like.
It sure would, but not in the way you think. There would be only the tiniest increase in work, and whole lot less eating.
That said, I would have more sympathy with that point of view if it were not for the redistribution of labor, and what is basically price fixing on labor. If there was actually a free market some of these conservative ideas might be alright, or at least MUCH less negative. The problem is the deregulation done in the name of "free market" is ironically what has destroyed the free market. When it's rigged to benefit certain people, the losses of some are socialized, there exist monopolies or near monopolies, we allow redistribution and price fixing of labor, there is tax incentive to make money out of thin air through financial product manipulation, higher tax on labor, and various other issues, there is no free market.
A free market geared towards demand-side economics (ie reality), would greatly reduce the need for liberal/socialist income-side manipulation, and social programs, which the right find so distasteful. The problem is the folks who own the market, own the government, and they have no intention of giving it back.
It's kind of funny to see the left for the ideas I am talking about, and the right against it, considering this was originally a conservative viewpoint. But it's old school Goldwater-style conservatism, which is the antithesis of neoconservatism. Now it's conservative to be for government subsidies when it used to be conservative to be against them. It would be the perfect time to get cooperation from the left, as it's no longer an even split between federalist and antifederalists; nearly all of us are decidedly antifederalist now, at least in the way that liberalism can be antifederalist that is.