Wanting a healthcare reform that would result in rational incentives for consumers and providers and everybody in between, fostering greater competition, and (as such) lower pricing is simply not the same thing as "actively wanting fewer people covered."
You have to get past that thinking. I can't speak for the Koch Brothers, but I can speak for myself. And I can assure that you that I don't "actively want fewer people" with health insurance. I just have qualms with the way that you'd prefer going about that happening. In my mind, the best way to increase access to healthcare goods/services is for those people routinely buy to be affordable for the typical American consumer. Obviously, there will always be some goods/services which will be beyond our capacity to afford. And, for those things, an insurance model makes perfect sense. But not for everything -- and I'd say we can start there.
It's not an accident that, with very little in the way of subsidy or public policy involvement, we've been able to just about achieve "universal cellphone." That is to say, our national cellphone penetration rate is somewhere in the high 90% range. Why? Well, primarily because it's affordable. Is there some regulation there? Yeah, and that's OK. But the important lesson is that we've gotten that kind of "universal coverage" not because we've made it an entitlement, but because it's within most peoples' price range.
This doesn't mean that there's room for common ground on healthcare between, say, Rand Paul and Elizabeth Warren. But so what? There doesn't have to be in order to get a bipartisan national healthcare policy.
we already have universal coverage, which is why we need single payer. We pay infinetly more when people visit the ER because they do not have/can't pay a local doc. Unless you are prepared to start denying ER services?