So because one party (coercive government) passes a law requiring somebody to provide a service to another party regardless of their ability to pay and then forces others with no involvement to pick up the slack you think the situation is "corrected" ? How does TRANSFERRING the cost to the people that didn't incur the debt fix anything? Hmm, lets apply this wonderful solution to other kinds of exchanges...
Cheesus Rice goes into Wendy's and orders some slop and doesn't pay, but a law was passed that Wendy's must treat his hunger whether he can pay or not. So Cheesus skips out of there (carefully avoiding the piles of fetid dung on the floor). Cheesus fires up one of his girly harleys and roars off home to share his loot with his blowup doll wife. In the meantime, DUE TO THE LAW, the same law makers "fixed" the situation, by saying Uncle Buck and all of the other Wendy's Care people have to pick up the slack and now must pay to subsidize Cheezy's burger habit.
The result is, cheezy just goes back everyday and keeps ordering the food and not paying for it, he loves it! THANKS GOVERNMENT!!!...What he does with the slop and his blowup doll wife is not part of this story however.
It sounds like the problem, was CREATED by the government, when they intervened in the business of private people and private service providers. Their "solution" forces uninvolved people to pay for something they didn't use. No good solution transfers the debt from the debt creator to uninvolved parties. A private business run by government edict is no longer private is it, comrade?
Do you kick your cat when Uncle Buck shits on the floor ?