I just came across this article about an accidental study Basically, the treasury department (irs) sent out a letter to people who paid a fine for not having health insurance. The letter explained how they could get insurance and encouraged them to do so. Unfortunately, for budgetary limitations, the letter did not go out to some people that it otherwise would have reached. Thus was created an accidental randomized study of the impact of these sorts of efforts https://apple.news/AjC9tvHqpSq26dfI7pQvEng As I understand it... the study found that for uninsured people between 44-64 who got insurance as a result of the letter... their death rate was 12% lower The subsequent research, published by Mr. Goldin with the Treasury economists Ithai Lurie and Janet McCubbin, found that gaining coverage was associated with a 12 percent decline in mortality over the two-year study period (the first months of coverage seemed to be most important, presumably because people could get caught up on various appointments and treatments they might have been missing). for the moment let’s assume thus study is correct that a government policy such as requiring health insurance could reduce the death rate. Would that be a legitimate undertaking of our government. Would such an effort be different than, for example, air pollution reduction regulations, car safety regulations, or FAA AIRLINE regulations which are also aimed to reduce death rates?