It doesn't make any sense to legally require stabilizing care and then do nothing to get people to participate on the pay side.
If you want some specific ones here, consider a diabetic who can’t afford insulin, or someone with cancer who can’t pay for treatment.
If we’re talking about a true free market where ERs can turn people away, then it could be something simple like having a heart attack while you’re out and forgot your insurance card at home, or being mugged, beaten, and left for dead.
"death due to lack of health insurance"
4 results.
I'm not trying to be pedantic, but I think it is important to ground this broader discussion in actual specifics. I keep hearing all these insane stories of people dying on the streets, which simply doesn't reflect anybody's lived experience.
Of course that's not to say there aren't significant real problems, but the discussion is so hyperbolic and far from reality that it's almost not worth having. This problem underlies both the "universal health care" and the free market absolutists. They're both selling different versions of utopia, which don't exist.
You can get emergency care and just not pay for it if you can't afford it. You can't get preventative care if you can't afford it.
With single payer, people wouldn't have to sign up; they would be signed up and have to opt out of they so chose. That's how it should work and it's not hand-wavy in the least.