I don’t have much more to add, except to note that Paul Krugman, in a brief blog post on the subject, makes a really bad analogy:
“This is essentially the same as denying someone essential medical care because he doesn’t have insurance. So the question is, do you want to live in the kind of society in which this happens?”
No. Krugman would have been correct if he’d said “This is essentially the same as an insurance company refusing to pay for someone’s essential medical care because that person never bought insurance in the first place.”
Best response yet to “my house burned down, all because I didn’t pay my bill” guy:
Every militant infantilist who thinks somebody else should have paid to prevent this house from burning down should be given the opportunity to express the courage of their convictions.
The town can keep three registers: the first for home owners paying their annual $75 levee to the fire department;
the second for everyone choosing not to pay, and;
the third for bleeding hearts willing to assume the moral hazard for paying for however many as they choose – by name – from the second list.
But no. That would involve charity, a virtue. What they want is socialism, a system where the other guy is forced to pay for their sentiment.