First of all, these questions were directed at Harshaw, not you
You should have PMd him, then.
I already know your absurd utopian answers...
You refer to them as 'absurd' only because you know you have no legitimate counter -- as evidenced by your following responses the fact that you do not respond to the questions I ask.
but I'm interested in seeing if any OTHER opponents of health insurance mandates are willing to go on the record defending them. As I suspected, Harshaw is not.
Want to put money on that?
I thought not.
The person is dying in front of them and seconds count. It compromises the quality of ER service for EVERYONE if this is the first thing hospitals do.
Irrelevant to the question you posed and the context in which it was asked.
You ignored the question. How exactly do they "release" someone in critical condition who can't walk?
You're being obtuse. The exact mechanics of release its irrlevant -- the point is they stop treating him.
Now, answer my question:
Why should the hospitals run the risk of not getting paid for the goods/services they provide?
They shouldn't HAVE to assume anything, because they should be required to treat people in the ER.
You didnt answer my questions:
Why would they not? Should they assume that he does have insurance?
So if someone in your family is taken to the ER and doesn't have their insurance card on them, you're cool with it if the hospital refuses to treat them and they die? You won't sue the hospital?
The patient dies. How was that not clear?
Should they assume that he does have insurance?
And this is exactly why this solution is completely ridiculous.
Hardly. We ALL act on the information we have at the time.
"If I would have known that, I would have..." is meaningless.
Not only does it compromise the QUALITY of care by delaying treatment, it will prevent some people (including insured people) from getting care at all.
Yep. So?
Why do you expect those that provide goods and services do so withouth any guarantee they will be compensated?
Once again, you ignored the question.
I answered the question -- the last word is "yes".
Should hospitals be allowed to reject ER patients for any reason they want, or only because of a perceived inability to pay?
There are clearly legitimate reasons to refuse service to patients -- but the discussion hereis the ability to pay, and so that the only relevant answer is the one I already gave.
There. You now have an alternative to your argument, as you requested.
You no longer have an excuse to not defend your argument.