>>I found a study that showed a decline in mortality rates for groups affected by Medicaid expansion vs control groups.

You mean the ACA Medicaid expansion? So you're starting to answer your own impolite earlier question.

>>Those people probably could not afford medical care before the expansion.
>>That makes sense to me.

It's a truism- Medicaid is for low-income people. ACA made another 11m people eligible for Medicaid plus (from memory) included maybe 3m older kids via access to parental policies.

>>Telling a 45 year old making $100K/yr that he has to buy insurance does not.

How about telling a 45 year old that he has to cover Medicare costs for people who systematically underfunded the program during those wonderful inflationary years when every $10 properly underwritten now would be worth $1000? Instead, the 45 year old has to pay the $1000 to provide care for somebody who says the 45 year old shouldn't have to take care of himself but definitely has an obligation to pay the $1000.

Meanwhile if there's no individual mandate for the 45 year old, then there's no guaranteed coverage and the insurers have to be allowed to exclude pre-existing conditions. Back we go to the good old days of middle class bankruptcies if you're so foolish as to become unwell. Willful blindness regarding this simple calculation is bringing the ACA marketplace to its knees.