> ...but your point is weirdly defensive of anti-vax beliefs as well...
If this is accepted as an appropriate way of dealing with no-vaxers then the entire intellectual edifice of state-sponsored healthcare is at risk. You'll probably see some superficially surprising positions where (1) anti-vaccers are human scum willingly endangering us all and (2) it is necessary that we offer them high quality medical treatment. Note that it is a reasonable and consistent worldview, although probably not the intuitive one to someone who doesn't hold it.
I'm all for the idea, personally. People should pay their own medical costs. But it isn't a universally tolerable solution for how to handle the vaccine resistant (especially in the medical community, I assume).
I don't know if I'm fully parsing this, but there are more solutions (in my eyes, better solutions) to putting skin into the game than denying treatment or putting monetary burden for the treatment on those who refuse to vaccinate against all evidence: denial of licenses, vaccine mandates, charging those that violate quarantine and social distancing measures and then infect people with reckless endangerment...none of these are morally easy or popular, but this is a delicate issue where not doing anything is not a neutral position either.
If this is accepted as an appropriate way of dealing with no-vaxers then the entire intellectual edifice of state-sponsored healthcare is at risk. You'll probably see some superficially surprising positions where (1) anti-vaccers are human scum willingly endangering us all and (2) it is necessary that we offer them high quality medical treatment. Note that it is a reasonable and consistent worldview, although probably not the intuitive one to someone who doesn't hold it.
I'm all for the idea, personally. People should pay their own medical costs. But it isn't a universally tolerable solution for how to handle the vaccine resistant (especially in the medical community, I assume).