Access to medical care should never be denied based on race, age, gender etc. That is very very wrong. We cannot claim to live in a free society if access to medical care is biased towards one group or another. This right is as important as the right to free speech, to a trial by jury etc.

Paying for it on the other hand is not so cut and dry. There is no such thing as "free".

How should it work? I don't know for sure but I have seen it work better. In Australia, the Anglican church strongly believes that the elderly should have a good quality of life and so a huge portion of the contributions they receive from their congregations go towards funding teams of nurses that continually visit the elderly in their homes. This is both effective and voluntary. The people they visit are rarely even members of their church. They are called the Blue Nurses if you want to google it.

Shriners hospitals here in the United States used to work like that as well. Some even still do to a certain extent. The key difference is the fact that this is voluntary. Not everyone needs to be forced to be a Shriner to receive the benefits of their charity.

Before government got involved in health care, communities of like minded people would join lodges who had medical doctors on retainer. For around a day's wage per year they had access to their lodge's medical doctor at any time. Women's groups, minorities, immigrants etc. Source This was ended because the medical profession believed they weren't getting paid enough so lobbied for more exclusivity to their profession and tighter regulations on how it was to be practiced creating an artificial scarcity. It was claimed that lodge practice was "Un American". (Bonk head against desk). This change, benefited the regulators and the doctors. Not "society" and most certainly not the poor.

I want to live in a society where there are no poor. Where people who are born with an illness receive the best quality of life possible. I do not however want to be forced to do so. That would be the exact opposite of freedom. I much prefer charities and voluntarism over Government.

Believe it or not, roads were built, hospitals were constructed, people were educated. . . all long long before government stretched forth it's mighty hand. . . and now somehow society is confusing morality with government over-reach. Like I said. You don't get any brownie points for being a moral person if you vote for someone who forces higher taxes. . . because rarely, if ever, does doing so benefit the poor more than the system that it replaces but you can be sure that it ALWAYS benefits those who have power and influence.