Means testing and low- versus no-cost programs is an interesting issue. I largely don't believe in "free" stuff, but prefer means-tested, low-cost stuff. But there is a good argument that for certain things, free is the right way to handle it. Food for the poor may be one such place. There is little evidence that providing food to the poor encourages poor people not to work.
One of the big areas of abuse in the medicare/medicaid programs is over prescription--not outright fraud, but overselling certain services. This is also very hard to police (think "death panels"). Doctors are paid by service provided, and there is a lot of effort put into selling those services. But who is the government to tell a doctor a service isn't medically necessary? Of course, "the government" employs hosts of people with expertise in these issues, but anytime the answer is "no" you range into "death panel" territory. Insurers do it all the time, of course, but because they are private parties, we hear less about it (but not nothing). And setting fraud, waste, and abuse aside, most of us have been in the situation where we have had to evaluate various cost/benefit scenarios related to different available medical treatments. It's hard, and imperfect in the best of cases.
Personally, I don't believe in "free" medical care, meaning without any kind of co-pay. But I do believe co-pays shouldn't be so big as to prevent necessary care. Naturally, for the very poor, this is a very difficult line to draw. Maybe even harder for those who hold down a job (or several), but can barely afford their rent, food, and the necessities of life. For the very poor, they may not be making decisions about what not to pay for, but for those on the edge--hard workers, struggling to get by (and this is a large group of people)--forcing them to decide between medical attention and paying rent that month is tough.