I have several answers:
1) It is not my problem just as it is not my problem if the person does not have a car or a new Rolex for that matter if they want one. It is though my option to help them if I choose to. FYI, I have done that in the past. Even once for an employee who had cancer of the cervix. We not only made sure that they had insurance we also paid them for a year while they were going through things and did not work. By the way, it never once came to mind that we should require that someone else, including the government be forced to pay for things.
2) The market can handle these high risks but if it cannot then indeed it is "too bad". Harsh? Maybe, but this is not or used to not be a socialist country. Forcing any third party, including insurance companies, to be forced to pay for the person in the situation you describe is theft. Period.
3) If someone has paid in to the system and that system was constructed as some kind of health savings plan then they should see some of that money back. But if they paid premiums for all those years in to a pool that covered events that were insured then the person paid for what they got. Thinking that the person is "owed" something after paying in money for years is just wrong headed. Insurance is designed to cover the loses, that is for sure, but that is not what it is for. It is for covering the "risks". Anyone that uses the "hey I paid in to it" does not understand what insurance really is. The federal government and Congress is a good example of this. They don't understand insurance. They think it should be sensible to sell fire insurance after the house has started to burn. This is actually the scenerio you are describing. I suggest you take a look at "federal flood insurance" too. It ain't insurance but that is a topic I do not want to get in to here. Too long.
So basically my answer is that your scenerio while sad is not my problem unless I choose to make it mine. Under no circumstances should I be required to make it my personal problem.
The notion that Democrats pick up another voter as you assert is likely accurate. But that does not make it right nor does it make the theft of money out of my pocket to pay for the plight of someone else, no matter how sad, right.
Recently, I had a parent who has been retired for many years find that as they put it they were "outliving their money". Did I think of a way to get the government to pay them more? Nope. Did I ask the government to come up with a way to take money from others to help them? Nope. My solution was simple, I figured out a way to pay them myself. And the problem was solved. But here is what pisses me off about your sad sack story here. When people in the situation you describe sell their votes to the government and in return the government STEALS from me that means that they have just dug in to the same pocket that I use to pay for my parents in their golden years. It steals from the same pocket that I used to help my employee with cancer. It steals from the same pocket I use to help others whenever I can. So my reponse is not only "too bad" I add "how dare you" in addition to that!
As you state, insurance is the pooling of funds to cover risk. For those who buy insurance, and continue to pay the premiums, when the risk event occurs the insurance pays off. Those who choose not to purchase insurance bear the full risk and if a risk event occurs must absorb the full loss.
If I have a fire and I’m insured, the insurance company pays for the loss. I then rebuild the house and continue to pay insurance. If the house burns down a second time my homeowner’s insurance again pays to restore the house up to the limits of the policy. Unless there is fraud, the first fire (i.e. the preexisting condition) does not prevent me from continuing my insurance or being reimbursed if I have another fire.
Private health insurance is different in the US market due primarily to the lack of national portability. Ignore employer group insurance. If I buy an individual policy in New York, then move to Florida I cannot take my health insurance policy, and coverage, with me. I have to buy a new policy in Florida. If while covered by insurance in New York I am treated for cancer, when I move to Florida and try to buy insurance the cancer is considered a preexisting condition and may prevent me from purchasing health insurance in Florida. This has nothing to do with me expecting someone else to pay for my health care. I’ve paid for my health care prior to my move and wish to continue paying for my insurance coverage at my new location. The problem is the preexisting condition, which occurred when I was covered by insurance in another state, prevents me from buying insurance based on the way the system is constructed today. The same thing occurs if I lose my job (and employer health care coverage) and become self employed. I am willing to continue to pay the premiums for my existing policy/coverage, but that option ends when Cobra ends.
I suggest a conservative answer to the situation is to permit and encourage a national market for insurance which includes the policy portability which does not exist in our current state regulated market. Along with portability, the health insurance laws should allow employees in group plans to have the option of contracting directly with insurance companies instead of the contract being between the insurance company and the employer. With complete plan portability, the preexisting problem I outlined is eliminated for people who are actually paying into the system. If I lose my job with a company, as long as continue to pay the premium for my policy I still have insurance. If I move from New York to Florida, I do not have to buy a new insurance policy, my existing health insurance policy continues as long as I pay the premium. If I’m hired by a new employer who offers health insurance benefits, the new employer can pay whatever amount per employee its health insurance benefit equates to directly to the company providing my health insurance.
While I agree with you in principle that this isn’t your problem, or my problem, the reality is the elected representatives of the people have decided it is our problem. Unfortunately, given the current makeup of the electorate, if the answer we conservatives provide to every problem debated in the political arena is “too bad”, we are going to see more of our property and liberty taken from us by government. Perhaps it is time for us to engage in the debate by offering practical and real solutions. One reason we lost the healthcare debate is we did not provide alternatives that addressed the issues and concerns raised by the opposition, as well as many citizens, when we had control of Congress and the White House. Once the Democrats captured Congress and the White House they had the opportunity to address the problem in a way that made it our problem.
More national problems, or perceived problems, are going to be addressed by Congress in the near future. They include immigration, college education funding, gun control, the solvency of Social Security and Medicare, and funding the increasing size of government. I’m afraid “too bad” isn’t going to be an acceptable answer to the Democrats and their voters. If “too bad” is all we have to offer, the elected representatives will choose other options and in doing so continue to take our property and infringe on our liberty.