Determine if he can pay.2. Let's say that someone in the ER is stabilized but unable to walk due to their illness/injury. It is then determined that the patient does not have insurance. What should hospitals do with them?
If not, then they either release th epatient or accept the possibility that they migh tnot get paid for the goods/services they provide.
Why should the hospitals run the risk of not getting paid for the goods/services they provide?
Absent any information to the contrary, that's exactly what they should assume. Why would they not? Should they assume that he does have insurance?3. If doctors cannot find an insurance card on the patient, should they be allowed to assume the patient does not have insurance?
The patient dies.If so, what happens when they do nothing and allow a patient to die
No, as they acted on the information they had at the time.and it turns out the patient did have insurance? Are they liable for malpractice?
If they do not want to run the risk of not getting paid, yes.4. Should hospitals ONLY be allowed to pick and choose ER patients based on their ability to pay (or perceived ability to pay)?
There. You now have an alternative to your argument, as you requested.
You no longer have an excuse to not defend your argument.