First off, the scenario is the usual one offered by UHC proponents. This is where the problem comes in.
Simply put, we don’t lookat the issue in the same way. You want to talk about poor little babies and innocent grandmas who will surely die without the government’s assistance. We tend to look at the “Big Picture” and what it will do to the country. You want to focus on sweet adorable faces and we look at the body as a whole.
Second, we don’t necessarily have problems with government programs for the needy. What we generally oppose are measures which increase government control over healthcare, which is exactly what we see in the Democrat’s plan. This is because said plan(s) are poorly written, intended to create something they vaguely want which they will simply fiddle with endlessly later, and which have previously been failures at their stated goals while causing considerably economic disruption and budget crunching.
The reason we oppose govenrment control over healthcare varies considerably. For my money, it’s because I’m willing to sacrifice healthcare today (even my own, and even that of my fellow citizens) so that our children and their children can have better medicine, whereas the government wants to push down on all prices (but not costs, which they confuse with prices because they are morons), drive out private profits, and control what services people get in the name of the “greater good.” I want more drugs, even if they are expensive at first,a nd more and better treatments, even if they cost a fortune, so that the drugs will go off-patent sooner and the treatments will be improved and made cheaper. And we have the best possible proof that private industry does this far better and more reliably than any government.
Third, even supposedly inadequate insurance often deals well with far-fetched emergency scenarios like you present. This is because on average the ludicrously expensive scenarios are also exceedingly rare, which makes them quite cheap on a per-person basis, often amount to a small fraction of overall costs. It may require a few calls to push the insurance people, but insurance usually pays for it.
Fourth, your question is irrelevant and irrational. I do not have a problem with people who take advantage of government programs, even if they have a general objection tot he existence of the program, provided that neither the program nor their usage is intrinsically morally wrong. While I strive for an ideal world, I also recognize and accept the fatc that we still live in a poor representation thereof.
Edit:
Another issue which seperates us is that most UHC-proponents call healthcare a RIGHT. This is basically an example fo the rampant stupidity in humanity. Healthcare is emphatically not a right, never has been, and probably never will be, and is the perfect demonstration of why Positive Rights are the inbred bastard cousin of Negative Rights. Negative Rights only require that someone leave you alone and not bother you. Posituive Rights, if taken seriously, require human slavery.
If you have a so-called right to good health or at least good healthcare, you are claiming the authority to force other people to work and labor for your health or healthcare. There is no logical evasion to this, period, end of story. None. However, believers don’t let a little thing like logic get in their way. Instead, they demand it as a right and claim with endlessly tinkered rules and regulations that they can somehow make it come out all right. It doesn’t work like that. Eventually, they usually fall back on claiming it’s the “greater good,”, which even if it true, is not the same thing as a right.