Which is the greater moral disservice - a set price, to be paid for by a non-profit, heavily regulated healthcare org -- or letting people die because they can't afford to go to a hospital that isn't overrun by MRSA?
It's not clear to me what you are proposing. Particularly, the source of funding in your proposal seems to be something like "A miracle occurs, and then the healthcare org is sufficiently funded to pay for people's health care."
One could just as easily ask "Which is the greater moral disservice - a global food distribution network that ensures every person will have safe sustenance, or letting people starve because of regional droughts, tyrannical governments, and currency speculators?" but the question does not apparently lead to any actionable policy decisions.
