I don't have a stake in this argument - I'm very much a bystander. Submitting it to the Mumsnet hive mind for consideration.
Adult 1 is older, (70) has a stent in his heart and mobility problems. He is awaiting surgery for the latter. He can still get out and about, however, and enjoys a fairly active retirement. He is decently well off and wants to travel. However, he is appalled at the cost of travel insurance. As a consequence, he is thinking of going abroad to Europe uninsured. His point of view is that the EHIC will limit the potential cost of any accident to around £10k and he can afford to pay this should something happen. He has a tendency to regard insurance as 'tempting fate' and insurance companies as a rip off.
Adult 2 is younger (44). He thinks Adult 1 is wrong that the cost of any treatment would be limited to £10k. He believes that the premium is higher because an accident or emergency is more likely, and that travel insurance ought to be bought to cover potential costs, particularly given that the price is affordable to Adult 1. Adult 2 is generally risk-averse and cautious with money.
Who, in your opinion, is right?