I don't think we are going to get rid of emergency care for indigents. If we accept that premise, then my issue becomes 'why have we chose to provide free health care in the most expensive, least effective manner?'. I'd much rather have the government spend $50 of my money to keep the kid from getting sick than $500 for an ER visit when he gets sick. As I said, for me, the only way around this conclusion is to say that we aren't gonna pay for the eventual ER visit. As long as we are, I think we should try to control those costs as best we can.
Then you're accepting socialism. This idea of everyone's wants becoming obligations to the rest of us is a late 19th century idea that really got its main impetus under FDR, and the more socialism that we have the screwier the country becomes. I'm much rather the parents or a charitable institution pay rather than force me to pay, and the hell with junkies. If they want to shoot up, let them, but then if they die from an OD that's their problem too.