Not out of frugality. It’s a simple issue of fairness. 5% of the healthcare consumers will result in 95% of the costs. Why is it fair that the 5% that choose to engage in high risk behavior are subsidized at the expense of the 95% that choose not to?
https://theweek.com/health/britains-cocaine-habit-use-of-the...
If you pay for home insurance (you kind of have to unless you own your home outright or are renting), you're paying for other people's fire or water damage. And one day they might pay for yours.
If there's a lot of fires or water damage, everyone's costs go up.
Notice how in both of the above, there is no third party forcing me to pay for anybody’s bad choices.
You are paying for it with your rent, just like you're paying property taxes.
We wear helmets and seatbelts?
Insurance is entirely about paying a small amount so that the costs of being on the wrong side of bad luck doesn’t pauper your citizenry. A single payer system wildly reduces the amount that has to be paid, while increasing service outcomes since now you can negotiate with drug companies.
I would happily pay for that kind of system as well, because I am happy to ensure that the rest of the nation is better off.
The maximally effective version, with the least cost, and greatest coverage is one that distributes costs across the largest pool of individuals. Which is a single payer system.
> The maximally effective version, with the least cost, and greatest coverage
It would be even more effective to just enslave a bunch of people and force them to pay for my healthcare, but I don’t advocate for that because it’s immoral and unfair.