No.
Health care is not different but the thing is, if you is in need of Health care you are gonna get it unless you advocate letting people die from it. So there is gonna be a conflict of morality here.
I advocate not forcing people to buy a service they may not want, and doing it with full knowledge of the consequences. And while I don't believe anyone should be denied
emergency medical care, the person who receives that care should be billed if he doesn't have insurance.
And if you do get Health care but has no Insurance the bill will end with all the other payers.
Well, beyond placing a lien and garnishing that person's wages (or moving against his estate, if he's dead by the time the bill is due), I don't see why anything special needs to be done. Granted, you won't always be able to collect, but how is that different any other bill for services rendered?
Besides, if this is
really your concern, why not simply augment the existing system so that anyone not
already[/u] covered under a separate policy (e.g. via their workplace) is covered for emergency medical care only under Medicare?
I'll tell you why - because that doesn't help you get anywhere. You are conflating two very different things: healthcare and emergency medical care, and you are doing it on purpose to promote a "solution" to a problem that's made up in order to advance a particular agenda.