Again, can't comment on California, but in Texas, no hospital (private, non-profit, for-profit, whatever) may turn away a patient based upon ability to pay.
I know nothing about the Catholic hospital which turned away the stabbing victim, but I suspect that no physician got to see the patient, and that the "turn-away" was done by an overzealous administrative or clerical type.
It is imperative that no one be in the position of being denied critical care; but I have seen much not to like about nationalized health care, including the experiences my sister has had with the scheme in Australia, where one often has lengthy waits for surgery for conditions which are not imminently life-threatening.
The "single-payer" model (as favored by Senator Clinton) would be great if you presume that the government is competent to administer such a program. I simply do not think that government could successfully do it, based upon their stellar competence in handling so many other facets of government
I agree wholeheartedly that health education is vital (as is education in every area of endeavor), along with preventive care- that is why the "walk in clinic" programs being promoted in many places are so successful.
Really, for those who cannot afford (or choose not to purchase, sayeth the cynic/realist) health insurance, the health care system is
government-run, and provides care which is (from all of my observations of health care here and in countries with well-respected national systems like Australia) on par with the nationalized systems.
We simply don't force everyone down to the lowest common denominator, the bureaucratic depths represented by all-gov't health care.
...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...