I understand where the sentiment is coming from, but there are some assumptions I’m not sure about.
Do insurance companies let you pay premiums on a monthly basis? If so, then $14 a month is doable. Make people pay that quarterly, and it can be hard when you’re living on the edge.
“If you can’t afford that then go out and find yourself a different job so you can…” I don’t think it’s that easy for everyone. A new job could mean different hours that make daycare more difficult. Or a farther commute when gas money is tight or your car is unreliable. We’re talking about people working in blue-collar jobs (I presume) and until I’ve been there, I’m not going to start telling them how to improve their lives.
As for not having health insurance, it’s noble of you to say that taxpayers will not be asked to pay for an illness, but I’m not sure you can guarantee that, despite your best intentions. If you get hit by a bus tomorrow and require long-term intensive care, are they going to let you die rather than rack up expenses you can’t pay for personally? What if you get some rare cancer? Will you refuse treatment? If not, are you sure your family will all chip in? What if it (either scenario) ends up costing millions?
More importantly, I think we should ask what do we want to have happen to these people? They become homeless so they “learn their lesson?” They go deeper in debt trying to replace uninsured property so they’re living in even worse poverty? They declare bankruptcy? The fact is, these people were hit by a disaster that they didn’t cause. As it happens, they hadn’t taken steps to insure that the private sector would cover the consequences. That was stupid, and it’s galling to know we’re going to be paying for it. But I figure we’re all gonna pay in one way or the other, so I’d rather we handle it compassionately. We decide as a community (or nation) how we respond to a disaster, and I choose the compassionate route.