1. Should a sick person ever be turned away by a doctor due to inability to pay? My answer is no.

I can certainly sympathize with the good intention here but this stance actually opens a can of worms as far as I can tell.

First, look at it from the Doctor's perspective.  They are trying to run a business and how much out of pocket are they expected to absorb just to be in that business?  10% gross income?  50% gross income?  All the way to backruptcy?

You are saying that an individual Doctor is required to take on a potentially unlimited amount of charity work.  No?

This is sort of like asking the question whether grocery stores should be able to turn away hungry people who can't afford to pay.  Right?  Are you also willing to ask the grocers of the world to give away food for free in a similar fashion?

Second, what are the legal implications for standards of care you would place on this Doctor when caring for those who are unable to pay?  Are the donwtrodden able to sue the Doctor for not providing the best available care even if they couldn't pay?

For example.  Someone who cannot pay shows up in the Doctor's office with a broken arm.  The modern standard of care for the insured presumably calls for at least X-Rays (and maybe even more expensive tests depending on the particular case), a state of the art cast, additional X-rays and follow-up appointments.

Is this Doctor expected to pay for all of that out of their own pocket just because someone walked into their office?  Or is it acceptable for said Doctor to simply make a physical examination only and apply a simple splint to the best of their ability to properly set the broken limb?  In this case the Doctor has not refused care but they have not provided the best possible care so are they then liable if the limb doesn't heal properly?

Personally I can't see how anyone can be expexted to cover an unlimited amount of expense simply because someone chooses their door to walk into.

Now, as far as I am concerned this same analogy scales up to hospitals as well.  The economics are the same.

2. Should it be possible to go bankrupt trying to pay for your healthcare? My answer is no.

I can also sympathize with the good intentions here as well.  To a large extent this issue can be covered amongst the insured by the insurance companies spreading the costs across a large enough pool of people such that the premiums are set high enough to cover the catastrophic cases without raising the premiums.  That is, after all, what insurance is supposed to be doing for us.  It will mean higher premiums for all of us who buy insurance but only incrementally so.

The problem always comes back to the uninsured and what to do with them.  You can't simply let them start buying insurance for the same premiums as everyone else has been for years the minute they discover they have cancer or whatever.  To do so only invites people to avoid buying insurance until the last minute thereby passing the true costs on to those who have been all along (since they will have had to pay higher premiums all along in order to cover the costs for the people who don't buy in until they are already sick).

I don't see how making a government run program solves any of this with the possible exception that extracting taxes from people is constitutional whereas requiring them to buy insurance is not.  But as soon as you cross that line you are forced into a position where you are either rationing of care beaurocratically (as opposed to via a free market) OR you have an out of control spending monster that you can never shut down.

I still think that the private system is better because the people having their care rationed are, at least to some extent, self-selecting by virtue of having made the decision to not buy insurance.