No, that’s not what I am saying at all.
No one should be stuck with a $3000 bill for attempting to render help. The situation as it stands is that someone should be stuck with that bill. I am against that. If we allow the situation as it is to remain in place, everyone will have a human incentive to walk away from the distressed without rendering aid. Who would want to face financial ruin just to help one’s fellow man? When the alternative would be to not face financial ruin? Yes, the state should pay for cases like this woman’s, to get rid of the incentives built in to make people walk away. I am not in favor of welfare in 99.99% of cases, but in this case, yes, I think the state should pick up the tab. No one should be fearful of financial ruin for attempting to help someone in good faith, just as no doctor or other good samaritan should fear a lawsuit for attempting to heroically save someone in distress. It should always be less costly to try to help someone. Raising the cost of helping someone always ensures that there will be a lot less of it. Human nature.
$3000 bucks sounds like it’s nothing to you, but how would you feel if the tests you had to pay for were $300,000? Or $3,000,000? The point is, even though $3000 is no hardship to some, to others it is. That’s what good samaritan funds ought to be out there for, public or private, to reduce the natural - and reasonable - incentive to walk away if one didn’t have a spare and handy $3000 bucks lying around to pay for medical tests.
I understand your point, but $3000 when compared with the risks this woman took to her health is really small potatoes. It would be nice if somebody picked up the tab, here. But I don’t think it is a grave injustice if somebody does not.