Of course the responsible thing for riders is to buy insurance to cover the increased risk they expose themselves to as a result of participating in the sport. It would be even more responsible to take prudent precautions, such as wearing helmets, protective boots and other clothing, and taking formal rider training. I suppose an argument could be made, and often is (at least by my wife) that the really responsible thing to do is not to ride at all. But, since we can't all live in antiseptic bubbles you have to draw the line somewhere. I personally choose to draw it at wearing proper protective gear, not riding while impaired by substances, fatigue or emotion, or in weather that is unreasonably bad (such as snow or ice on the roads). Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing my preferences enshrined in law, but clearly not everyone agrees, and as a believer in democracy I'm comfortable going along with that.
As far as hospitals refusing service to injured cyclists or even illegal aliens, I can't go along with that. The mission of a hospital and any health care worker is (or should be) to treat first and ask questions later, at least in the case of a medical emergency. This principle is reflected in the federal law known as EMTALA (emergency medical treatment and active labor act), which requires hospitals to provide care to emergency patients without regard to ability to pay. It effectively makes it illegal to even discuss fees with an emergency patient before treating them. It was passed mostly to prohibit refusing life-saving treatment to uninsured patients (who currently make up about 16% of the US population), a practice also know as "dumping."
This law is financial bad news for hospitals, and is really unfair to them economically. It actually threatens the existence of many hospitals and the overall availbility of the trauma services we all rely on in emergencies.
In my view it is just another good reason why we should adopt some form of universal health insurance coverage.
Howver, it is good policy in that it relieves emergency medical personnel from trying to adjudicate whether or not someone financially or legally qualifies for emergency services, thereby making it possible to do their lifesaving work without uneccessary delay or extraneous concern. To bring the issue home, would you like to have your life at risk because your ambulance was diverted multiple times after a motorcycling injury -- or any other injury or illness -- because the cops or paramedics couln't find your driver's license/insurance card/bith certificate or passport? I know I wouldn't.
As I said, this is really unfair to hospitals, which bear the legal and financial burden of treating uninsured patients. But it is ufair to us all, because these financial burdens can't be borne indefinately, and have already resulted in a loss of emergency services to many inner city and rural areas, where rates of uninsured patiens are highest. But until we as a society directly address the financial aspects of whether and to what extent health care is a right (vs. a commercial product), we will continue to have this problem.