[shripadk]

I can confirm this. Hospitals don't treat unless the injured person's relative(s) sign legal papers. The general rule of thumb in India is that one should always carry at least an ID proof (better yet an insurance policy) so that in case of an accident the hospital can contact the relative.

[mikeash]

This is what a true free-market health care system looks like.

I always wonder about this when I see people arguing against socialized medicine. Should accident victims be left to die like this? Any answer besides "yes" implies some sort of government intervention. In the US, since 1986, ERs must treat everyone. This basically gave us a really bizarre socialized medicine system with horribly inefficient funding and procedures.

[ars]

It used to be that charitable societies setup funds within hospitals to pay for such people.

If they were able to bill insurance, or the person, later, then the fund would be replenished.

So it is possible to say "yes" and not have government involved.

[shripadk]

That exists in India in the form of societies like Lions Club, Rotary Club etc. However, the number of hospitals that are supported by these charitable societies are understandably smaller in comparison to the number of private hospitals.

[mikeash]

So when we take a look at societies that actually do it this way, such as India today or the USA before 1986, why do we find hospitals dumping patients who can't pay?

[lenkite]

I double-confirm this, but with the exception of charity and government hospitals. There are several such hospitals in every major metropolitan city in India. Of course, the 'nearest' hospital may not be one such. The private hospitals operate on pure capitalism and patients who cannot pay are always delayed and then later declared as brought dead on arrival (DOA).

[mcguire]

That sounds more scandalous than roadside bystanders.