Ron Paul and the broken man

Much has been made about the exchange between Ron Paul and the moderator in the latest Republican primary debate about an uninsured person. I think a good deal of ugliness was displayed by the crowd, but I think something more important slipped by unnoticed.

If you didn't see the debate, here is a quick setup. The question was about a 30 year old who didn't have insurance (by choice) and get gets seriously injured. What happens then? Who pays for his care?

PAUL: But what he should do is whatever he wants to do, and assume responsibility for himself. My advice to him would have a major medical policy, but not be forced --

[moderator indicates that it is too late for that, person is hurt and needs care]
PAUL: No. I practiced medicine before we had Medicaid, in the early 1960s, when I got out of medical school. I practiced at Santa Rosa Hospital in San Antonio, and the churches took care of them. We never turned anybody away from the hospitals.

PAUL: And we've given up on this whole concept that we might take care of ourselves and assume responsibility for ourselves. Our neighbors, our friends, our churches would do it. This whole idea, that's the reason the cost is so high.

And here is the point…the guy should expect churches, friends, neighbors to care for him. Wait…what?

I am kind of confused here. So where does the arbitrary line get draw on who we should help? We tend to have an affinity for people in our town too…our state…(wait for it)…OUR NATION. Shouldn't we be willing to help to others in our nation? And isn't that kind how it is set up now?

I know from personal experience, for example, that there a bunch of fuckwits in Georgia (sorry to pick on you Georgia) that I don't like at all. But it also pains me to think of people in Georgia going hungry or suffering for lack of medical care. So on an individual basis I might not be pleased about who receives my largess (n times removed) but collectively it is something I want to happen.

Is it an issue of scale? How is a church funded? Everybody gives a little, right? That can't work on a larger scale? We can't all give a little so that everybody has a net?

The scenario only addresses a catastrophic occurrence, but what about chronic conditions like lupus, Alzheimer's, MS, whatever? My neighbor is going to finance my care for the rest of my life? What about those who don't belong to a church, or live in rural or isolated areas? And what if the people in the next town over find out that that your church provides better care than their own? Saying "churches, friends and neighbors" sure does sound good, but its unworkable. And sure the hospital he worked at didn't turn people away…I am sure it also took some government aid to be able to care for those who didn't pay.

To me it all stems from an inability to overcome basic selfishness and the whole we/they mentality.