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.
That's your fallacy. The only ER's that have to provide indigent care are those that are publicly funded.
"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."
Did you choose not to read where I addressed this distinction in my original post to you on this topic? Or are you just choosing to ignore it now?