you broke that green line into two.... one comprised of people with employer sponsored insurance and one for everyone else, I'd bet the line for people with employer sponsored insurance would be in line (at least) with the rest the countries for life expectancy, albeit with still with a far higher cost. But for people with employer sponsored coverage, most of that cost is borne by the employer. So they're getting good care and good health outcomes, just at a higher cost....but.... they're being mostly shielded from the cost.

I have great health care. I can get in to see my doctor this afternoon if I need to. If he needs to refer me out to a specialist, he will get me in with a specialist (at worst) in a few days. If that arrangement becomes illegal under Warren (hypothetically speaking), my access to health care would be far worse under a "medicare for all scenario". And the VAST majority of my health care cost is paid for by my company. You really don't see how I personally, or people with good employer sponsored plans might want what we currently have. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to fix what's broken, but you can't look at an average and say, that outcome stinks, why would anyone like that... particularly when we know we have such wide variations in level of healthcare between the "haves" and the "have nots" that all feed into an overall average.