However, with that philosophy, anything that goes wrong, that you could help with, but don't, is your fault. Because I don't go and help the starving children in Africa, it's my fault they're starving.
Yes well, we cannot all help the starving children in africa, and if you consider long-term applications of the philosophy, you'll find that helping yourself can be a help to others. One man who takes the time to build a foundation like the Red Cross can do more than if a thousand of us suddenly rushed off to africa with food and stuff.
So yes, the rich live and the poor die, because the rich man has typically contributed more beforehand, and therefore is able to provide for himself.
The dillema still remains: does this quantify the rich man's life as worth more than the poor man's? It seems like the answer is yes.
but is it not immoral to leave someone to die if they cannot afford to pay for emergency treatment, or allow someone to contract a terminal cancer because it would cost them money to seek medical advice which could have caught the cancer early? Surely it is equally unfair to save someone's life then slap them with a huge bill which they may, according to their position in society, may not be able to pay?
Immoral to leave them to die, perhaps, but to ask for compensation? I don't think so. Morality usually implies obligation, that we must save these people, or that we have a duty to. Terminal cancer may be terrible, but I have no obligation to help you if you contract it, when it comes down to it, just like I have no obligation to give you a house if you're homeless or food if you're starving. It's simply an unfortunate side effect of living, when it comes down to it. This is of course, a good reason for healthcare to be covered under social policy, because it would provide the service without all these borderline immoral situations.
do people protest at the logical extension of government service provision to healthcare?
The same reason they protest the nationalization of other industries. Competition tends to provide much more innovation, lower costs and increase efficiency. Of course, most people simply hate healthcare because they support the republican party, or because it's "socialist" and don't understand the actual factors in the issue, but like most issues there are pros and cons. In an ideal competitive model, people would recieve higher quality healthcare than in the government model for the same or less price. However, we know that these industries do everything they can to eat up the market and monopolize, which defeats some or all of the benefits of the model (through nasty things like refusing service, dragging out lawsuits, ect). In an ideal government model, everyone recieves the healthcare, especially those who need it, at the cost of some of the effects of competition. However, we know that government = red tape, long lines, ect, which defeats some or all of the benefits of the model. A hybrid would work best. Take the competitive model and introduce the government to ensure fair play, and theoretically we'd have the best of both worlds. Problem is, any group of people is only as good as the individuals within it, whether it be an industry or the government, and we all know who works in our government.... and our coworkers... yeah.
Problem is, this isn't a perfect world, and many of the people who voted for and want the Health Bill, only want it because it's a means of stealing money through voting, and they don't put back into society what they take. They are in effect stealing money from those who have worked for it in order to pay their bills.
This is another example of the problems in the government model, though it is easily paralleled by industrial corruption. In my opinion, good people = good products, whether the system is socialist or individualist, and unfortunately, like I said, we all know who we work with....
None.