No, I'm accepting efficiency. By your construct, I accepted socialism when I accepted that my money is going to be spent on the kid at the ER. And, if I understood you correctly, so did you.
Or are you saying that it is 'socialism' to spend $50 of your tax money on preventive care, but it is not 'socialism' to spend $500 of your money on emergency care? If that is what you are saying, I'd really like to hear how you differentiate the two.
It depends on whose money. If it's government money plundered from the taxpayer it's socialism. The kid going to the ER is paid for by the customers and stockholders of the hospital, not the taxpayers.
"Efficiency" is used to cover a lot of evils. I'm saying that spending $50 of the taxpayer's money on your straw man (the sick kid) only is efficient if you accept the socialistic premise that his health is the responsibility of the taxpayers anyway and it will cost the taxpayers $500 later on. If it costs his parents $500 then not spending the $50 isn't a problem for me. That is what parents are for, not to just squirt out children, but to take care of them as well.
Health care is a commodity, and if a sick person can't pay for health care, then look to private charity, but don't plunder what I worked for to pay for it. It isn't any different than any other commodity. You're distorting the whole argument by the handwringing emotional example of the "sick kid." What about the sick junkie who has abscesses from using dirty needles. I guarantee that one hell of a lot more ER admissions who can't or won't pay are from deadbeats who due to their lifestyles and stubborn persistence in poor life choices have health problems (abscesses, hep c etc.) and no money (all spent on dope or booze) than the hypothetical sick child.