People can and do object on ethical and sometimes religious bases when they are forced to buy insurance against their will. An approach that wouldn't force anyo

People can and do object on ethical and sometimes religious bases when they are forced to buy insurance against their will. An approach that wouldn't force anyone to buy anything and would be socially efficient is to just not send a rescue for people who haven't bought rescue insurance (effectively privatizing rescue, most likely) but this is politically unpalatable for most western cultures - you see the same with medicine. Also, how would requiring insurance for this even work logistically? Do we station cops anywhere a risky activity could conceivably happen? Do we arrest people if we think, post facto, they did something with a risk of rescue (like go on a hike) and didn't buy insurance for it?