In the abstract that is certainly true, but you are missing the bigger picture. You are acting as though people are somehow able to discern what is and isn’t an emergency and decide that all by themselves with perfect accuracy.

The point here is that it is preferable to sometimes use resources badly in order to avoid sometimes not at all using the resource when it would be necessary. The point is to not discourage people from calling 911 (or the local equivalent).

If there actually are constrained resources† then, sure, that cultural value should probably be set somewhat differently, but I cannot for the life of me imagine why that should be the case in the US. It’s not necessary to set that value differently. (If it were that would be a real shame for US healthcare and you should demand immediate change from your political representatives.)

—

† I am aware that at some point all resources are constrained. What I’m talking about here is that the system should be designed in such a way that there is spare capacity availible at all times when looking at the maximum number of required ambulances at the same time during, say, the past twelve months.

Which is why we have, at least in France (and AFAIK, in most of Europe), different kind of ambulances depending on the gravity of the case.

The hospital won't send an ambulance with ER stuff for a guy who don't need it.

What if you think you can go by Lyft and then collapse and die? You feel bad, get a Lyft and have an heart attack? Or you had a mild hard attack and think Lyft works whereas you need medical treatment immediately? You fell from a machine and have a broken arm and go by Lyft, whereas you inner injuries and collapse in the Lyft drive to hospital?

I assume you're a doctor and able to perform a medical analysis on the accident, so you're fine to go with Lyft.

I better call the emergency service and let them decide what would be the best way to go forward depending on my symptoms/injury.