Much writing about the Ron Paul-Wolf Blitzer exchange at the last Republican debate relative to health care insurance. Blitzer asked Paul, who is a straight shooter, about a hypothetical where a younger man chooses not to buy health insurance, but has a medical emergency occur that he cannot afford. The question is what happens to such a person under a Republican health care system. Ron Paul’s answer, while evasive, gave a broad hint that we just cannot take care of everyone, and that freedom has consequences. When Blitzer asked if that means the person should be allowed to die due to lack of financial resources Paul refused to directly answer, saying that charity would take care of such an individual. So what is the right answer to the question?
Let him die?
Impose an individual mandate so there are no free riders?
Treat him at taxpayer expense?
Is there a fourth option I have not thought of?
What lesson should be taken from the scattered cheers for the let him die option?