Actually, I am one of those personal responsibility types and would advocate for some kind of insurance based system that took into account lifestyle (I don't support either the UK system nor the crazy implementation in the US).
I know that's usually painted as every man for themselves but I advocate for it because I think general health would increase as would availability of care.
Regardless, whichever system we pick, my ideal or any of the current ones, denying people care based on this ill-considered and heavily politicised public "good" is an anathema to all of them. I don't think these people are biological nor social determinists, they seem more religious, like a puritanical temperance movement or something just as sinister.
You're begging the question by assuming the thing you're trying to prove.
If a bed is taken up by anyone then it is unavailable to someone else. They only get given out because someone needs it (medically). They are not given out because you deemed certain reasons good reasons and other people cannot have them because you deemed them bad reasons. Those beds are serving a use that is decided by medical need, a reasonably objective standard.
As I wrote, I didn't think you could make you statement balance consistency with morality but you've actually gone beyond that by seeming not to care about either.
Gosh I don't know what to tell you other than they're assholes and I don't want to be disadvantaged or inconvenienced in the slightest for their sake. Let's not miss a perfect opportunity for evolution.
For US hospitals with emergency rooms, the EMTALA requires them to care for such patients. Denying them care would require a change in federal law.
Also note that there's no completely reliable way for a hospital to determine whether a particular patient has been vaccinated. Most states have immunization registries but those aren't updated in real time and data entry errors are common.
