In the question, as it was asked to Paul, the guy "makes a good living". So, I think the question was, at the very least, hinting that the guy CHOSE not to be insured. If so, does that even matter?

Salmo, very well stated and I absolutely agree that a public option is REQUIRED to have any change in the system. You also recognized the part of Paul's argument that frustrates me. He wants to be a bad-ass and a man of "personal responsibility" yet he is too much of a pussy to come out and say, "Yeah, he made his bed." Instead, he implies that the guy SHOULD be treated and then, as if by magic, some aspect of society (churches I guess?) would come in with their checkbooks. If that was really the case, we wouldn't be in this mess. He can't have it both ways.

I'm actually kind of surprised by the compassion shown by the majority of posters. Most people seem to say that we cannot just let people die that are otherwise fixable. Some here seem to distinguish between something like accidents that require immediate care and longterm illnesses. Almost all seem to agree that accidents affecting otherwise healthy people should be treated, regardless of the patient's insurance status. If that is the case, I find it hard to believe that people don't take the next step and want to share those sort of expenses more evenly across the population. It really seems like the only way to do that IS to force people to have a plan so they are participating in covering the costs.

-AP