The thrust of what you are saying is true, but it's not quite as bad as you make it out to be. Last summer my girlfriend was between jobs. She had a non-life t

The thrust of what you are saying is true, but it's not quite as bad as you make it out to be. Last summer my girlfriend was between jobs. She had a non-life threatening but potentially dangerous condition. She went to the hospital and was treated. During the period of time between jobs she had purchased a temporary health insurance policy. That policy declined to pay for the treatment. The hospital presented us with a couple of options, renegotiate the bill, accept some charity, etc. We chose to fight the insurance company and ultimately had them pay it (because it was a valid claim). But one of our options always hovering around was bankruptcy. Do you want to do that? Of course not. We would have rather cleaned out our savings and maxed out the credit cards before doing that, but it was an option. So there is an obvious path here, get a temporary policy and use the card to get into the hospital. You will probably get denied by the insurance company for a pre-existing condition, but you can then declare bankruptcy. Now, that is a pretty terrible way to go about it and speaks of how screwed our system is. But I would say bankruptcy is preferable to prison. And since there is that path available, I would think that this guy is mostly an activist. I think he is making a good point (about how prisoners have a right to healthcare, but not the rest of us), but the problem is that it is too easy to punch a hole in his story. Critics will focus on him instead of the underlying message.