I'm kind of surprised this hasn't been discussed yet. At the last Republican/Tea Party debate, the moderator asked Ron Paul about what should happen to an employed, otherwise healthy, uninsured person that is stricken with an expensive illness (in this hypothetical question, the "illness" was a coma). The basic question is, "What do we do with such a situation?".

As much as I want to like Ron Paul, part of his response sums up why I can't. His answer is essentially that they guy probably SHOULD have had a policy but freedom allows him to not. I'm OK with that. I'm even probably OK if the answer was, "Well, he has no coverage and no money so he gets no treatment." Instead, Paul answers somewhat in between. "We never turned anyone away at the hospital I worked at. The churches took care of them."

Isn't his way of thinking exactly how we got here?




-AP