Yes to this please because the homeless druggies who are currently harassing ER doctors at all hours of all the time actually would do better to simply stop existing. This is the status quo at most ERs today.

So in your utopia, what's the process to determine if someone is a gross and terrible homeless druggie that deserves to die on the sidewalk; versus someone like yourself who is very important and deserves all the help right away?

Society makes this judgement every day in a thousand different ways. Resources are limited. It's why we don't give 85-year-old's heart/lung transplants - the 30-year-old recipient can use it better/longer. Does that mean we don't give any health care to 85-year-olds? No, and to argue it is so is a slippery slope fallacy. It's why we don't have lights on all 4-way stops even though it's safer than stop signs.

Given that we make these judgements, the problem with your argument is that you paint the GP as some sort of monster for making the judgement and picking a spot on the scale. It's a valid thing to disagree with where he picks on the scale; it is invalid to argue that there should be no scale.

> it is invalid to argue that there should be no scale.

And to put that into policy gets rid of the scale for everyone. You can see it with abortion restrictions in various states. Instead of the doctor's expertise, the lawyers are the ones to decide.

Then again this is very much on point for the US. There are no experts other than lawyers. /s

Yeah you've just described private health insurance in a nutshell.