People that can't afford to pay now aren't left to die in the US. There are charities that raise money for those people and I would much rather invest in a non-profit organization than government subsidized healthcare. Charities only make money when they get results; if a charity uses their donations in a way the donors see unfit, they lose funding and fail as a charity. The government forces you, and every other tax payer to fund their "charitable" cause, whether you get the results you want to see or not. That's theft no matter how you phrase it.
- - - Post Merge - - -
Something like that might have some positive impact, but you also have to consider how much of the taxpayers money would go to paper pushing and determining whether or not someone deserved to have the government foot the bill for their medical costs, rather than actually helping people.
And a system like that poses a lot of questions. What criteria do people have to meet to get their bills paid for? Do preventable injuries count? Do conditions like diabetes that you can be genetically predisposed to, but are mostly caused by poor diet and lack of exercise count? What portion of the taxpayers money should go to those that inflict poor health or injuries upon themselves? Are there any instances in which a person that couldn't afford to pay their own bills would be turned away?
I could go on, but you get the point.
