I’m inclined to believe that the status quo is actually better than mass human experimentation on the poor.

Yeah, not doing human testing on poor folks without a choice is really "angelic" and "perfect". Very high bar to set, how could we possibly achieve such high standards of morality?

That’s essentially a non-choice. Also data of self-administration is probably worthless.

Step 1: Create economic conditions in which vast numbers of people can’t afford medical care

Step 2: Offer them the “choice” of possibly receiving care by being medical guinea pigs for those who created the situation that deprived them of medical care in the first place.

A coerced choice is a not a free choice.

A non-help, because waiting for the idealized version of help - is still less worth than a "could-help" but under coercing economic conditions. A feel-good ideological purity is less preferable outcome then a tainted Samaritan.

If it wasn't clear, my belief is that it would end up doing more harm than good, and that the status quo is the least-harm scenario between the two.