If the answer is "No," then I've got some even worse news for you: we already have "socialized medicine." The patient will, in fact, be treated, and you and I will, in fact, pick up the tab. It just costs us several times more than it would in any other civilized nation on Earth, because unlike those nations, we insist on kidding ourselves.
This is where the debate ends. The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act passed in 1986 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act) made the US a single payer system, we just haven't been honest about it. Because of this law, anyone who enters the ER with an emergency must be treated. If the person does not have an emergency, they may be sent away; however, if they have an actual condition (e.g. cancer), the hospital must treat it later when it is worse and an actual emergency.
I dislike the concept of the government being the purveyor of healthcare for philosophical reasons -- because if it provides it, it is at least implied that it can take it away. It also gives the government essential control over the medical profession (again, if you're the only payer, you can set the rules). The government manages to mess up most things it touches. That said, the current situation is both morally and economically untenable. At some point, reality and practicality triumph over philosophy. Everyone is living longer, and nearly everyone is going to need some form of long term care. The only economically efficient way to handle that is to have a single payer. Or let them die.