They can already walk into any ER and get "free" healthcare, moron (in honor of EG's return).
Since you highlighted "free", I am going to assume you mean people on welfare who drink, smoke, and eat junk (fvck it, the rich can do as they wish). Let's be honest: they are more likely to do these things already, so why incentivize they quit? Hell, let's get them to croak ASAP, save some money. If we are lucky they will all have cancer and die by 40. We can put extra formaldehyde in the cheap cigarettes.
Maybe you can get the Bible Thumping wing of your party to convince people to give up drinking and smoking.
Seriously, who gives a fvck? There will always be some free-riders, drunks, people who eat three Whoppers a day. It's been that way since Biblical times. Outliers is no way to design policy.
Triggered!! Not a surprise. This is the usual response from you... "Bible Thumpers! Rich! Bible Thumpers! Rich!!" How about in honor of EG's return, you go pop a Xanax, a Crestor, slam another drive thru value meal, calm the fvck down and actually try and have a conversation.
Seriously? Outliers? You just showed us a study that basically tries to say that an entire demographic (without health insurance, supposedly 10s of millions within our population), can expect to die younger. I've also been told endlessly by social justice warriors like yourself that this demographic isn't an outlier. That the upper "1%" get everything...and the "99%" get the scraps....thus your constant whining about the "rich".
Of course it isn't "free" (despite it being the key selling point to the 99% for it's implementation). However you might want to explain that to rifle, (the reason "free" was originally highlighted) and the rest of the "majority" that constantly demand single payer systems. No one here that points to the negative results of single payer have ever suggested that there is literally zero cost. Its exactly the opposite.
I'll ask again (nothing to do with bible thumpers). 1)Does anyone really believe ("free") health insurance is going to incentivize individual healthier living? More importantly, 2) shouldn't that actually be the purpose and "design" of any policy that's supposedly about "saving lives" and "lowering costs"?
Of course the obvious answer to my first question is "No'. If people who actually contribute to their health care plans (pay $$$) and health insurance, don't even have the discipline to keep their 40 year old obese ass out of the local chili dog stand and off the cath lab tables, then avg Joe Billy Bob without insurance, needing a govt subsidy, and utilizing "single payer" wont either. That's why everyone put on/in such a system runs the bigger odds of getting put on the "wait list", as you say.... to croak.
The answer to my 2nd question: It should be "THE PURPOSE". Unfortunately govt policy "purpose" is about covering it's previously failed policy and ultimately trying to reduce it's own (benefit obligation) cost via restrictions on patient (taxpayer) choices on specific types of care (ala Obummercare via CMS).