[tptacek]

"Socialist" is a bad term for what we have. The insured do pay for the uninsured (mostly via taxes), but the uninsured don't get free rides: the system we have bankrupts them, often repeatedly, when they have health problems.

[EvanAnderson]

That's why I said "socialist" (in quotes) instead of socialist. It's not a true socialist system-- it's just a big ball of mud that's grown up over time rather than being something that is designed. Different interest groups have exerted influence over the years to shape that ball of mud in such a way that it benefits them, but it's still a ball of mud. It has the effect of spreading the cost to those who can pay (or who don't have the leverage to get discounts), much the same way that a socialist system would, but without the benefits of having a well thought-out socialist system that is subject to public scrutiny and regulation.

I don't know what part of my taxes go to paying for the uninsured. I have anecdotal experience of seeing rather large hospital bills for emergency written-off because the person receiving care didn't have adequate insurance. I would agree that someone with health problems is likely to end up with no assets or credit, bankrupt, and receiving some kind of public assistance.