Your position is sound except for one point... and that is doctors refusing treatment in critical ER situations. They must accept patients who are dying of critical injuries. It would be against medical ethics not to. Even a broken bone can be life threatening if it nicks a nearby artery as it shatters, or an allergy that is causing physical distress.
Given that, you would be hard pressed to define what could be considered "critical" and what isn't just based on initial appearance. Tests and reporting are required, as well as observation. This all requires money.
People should not be able to opt out under those grounds, and frankly to assume they could is just arrogant. I think the health care legislation has its flaws, but if it's going to go into practice, then it should encompass everyone. People wanting to opt out mostly don't have medical experience and are doing it from a libertarian perspective; meanwhile they have no way of knowing what medical issues face them down the road.
If you get critically injured, you will WANT care, regardless of what your position was beforehand. People without insurance now still get treated in such circumstances, but they can't pay their bills. This creates a burden on the entire system. That burden can only be plugged with mandated health care.
So, what you're trying to say is that the Emergency Room situation is expensive, so we should nationalize the entire industry because ....well, your argument doesn't actually make any sense.
If ER treatment is expensive, then it's necessary to make people bear the cost of their treatment, since that's how the laws of economics work to reduce the demand on a resource.
The best idea I heard in the last twenty years of health care discussion is the idea of medical savings accounts, in which people can put up to $5000 pre-tax dollars in an account, be it a mutual fund or whatever, their choice, and draw from that account without taxation to pay for medical expenses. Any money they don't spend it theirs to keep, forever, until they die, when it becomes the property of their heirs.
It's their money they're spending, most of them will choose wisely how it's spent. And by the time their in their fifties, when most people start falling apart, they'll have hundreds of thousands of dollars available to treat themselves.
And for those situations where real insurance is needed, people should, but should not be required to, buy a relatively inexpensive catastrophic coverage plan that will handle the emergencies or little cancers that might tap out their savings.
You see, this is how a society that respects human freedom and dignity, you know, a society concerned about real "progress", would encourage its citizens to become responsible self-reliant adults.
And for those that can't afford that basic coverage, we will always have socialists who are so caring about the lives of others that they'll be glad to donate their own time and money to help the poor. If they won't do that, they're just ignorant hypocrites promoting plans for some reason not related to the health and well being of others.