Blitz rule to stop time wins in drawn position

Fide has rule 10.2 quick play finishes 

(This doesn't apply to increment and delay games) 

Article 10: Quickplay Finish
10.1 A ‘quickplay finish’ is the phase of a game when all the (remaining) moves must be made
in a limited time.
10.2 If the player, having the move, has less than two minutes left on his clock, he may claim a
draw before his flag falls. He shall summon the arbiter and may stop the clocks. (See
Article 6.12.b)
14
a. If the arbiter agrees the opponent is making no effort to win the game by normal
means, or that it is not possible to win by normal means, then he shall declare the
game drawn. Otherwise he shall postpone his decision or reject the claim.
b. If the arbiter postpones his decision, the opponent may be awarded two extra
minutes and the game shall continue, if possible in the presence of an arbiter. The
arbiter shall declare the final result later in the game or as soon as possible after a
flag has fallen. He shall declare the game drawn if he agrees that the final position
cannot be won by normal means, or that the opponent was not making sufficient
attempts to win by normal means.
c. If the arbiter has rejected the claim, the opponent shall be awarded two extra
minutes time.
d. The decision of the arbiter shall be final relating to (a), (b) and (c).

Because there isn't an Arbiter to make the judgement call on if a player is trying to win by normal means. You'll have to rely on 50 moves with no captures or pawn moves or triple repetition of position if your opponent won't agree to a draw. 

I like the current rules on flagging on chess.com, but understand the argument otherwise. It makes time a very important factor in the game

This is casual chess, so there's no reason to do that. Can I make a rule that forces players to draw in a position that's equal? No, that's because there are still blunders to be made.

ok but the opponent can still blunder and lose.

The idea behind chess is to checkmate the opponent, not win by playing faster than your opponent. The 50 move rule is fine for long games, but in a blitz game I think a 20 move rule or maybe even 10 would be more reasonable.

Also, a move like that already exists, if we were to make it too short, it would affect the game way too much.

I agree with the OP that this may be a good idea in limited circumstances. I would say that K+R v K+R, Q+K v Q+K (barring forced mate when the position arises should be called draws by insufficient material, Perhaps also K+ rook pawn vs king if the king is in the corner

It's maybe insufficient material for advanced players, but players on average or below average level often make blunders. Even advance players can make mistakes. It's possible to checkmate with a rook and a king. Also, blitz is a game of speed, so getting flagged in such position  shouldn’t be surprising. It’s part of the game.   If you don't like getting flagged, play longer time controls.           

yes it is, that's why there are time controls.

exactly if u cant make moves fast enough its not the other guy's fault, its yours

Drawn positions is not a simple concept:

This position is not a draw if it's white to move

This position looks drawish but is in no way even close to drawish. That's why the rule has to be as long as checkmate is possible in any way, if you run out of time, you lose.

And it cancels out, you lose on time in a winning position, your opponents have also, you blunder occasionally, your opponents blunder occasionally.

The simple fact is that people blunder and there can be positions where it it can take more than 5 moves to convert the position. The site isn't going to change how draws are handled in situations like this. If there isn't enough time to get one of the regular draws, the game will just end up as a loss on time.

I know, but I am sure they are similar tactics in endgame positions that take 6 moves. My 2nd position takes 7, and it looks even more drawish. A skewer in combination with a checkmate threat or the king also attacking the rook can win. Positions like this, it is technically even more ridiculous for white to lose, but white still loses on time here:

If black didn't have the pawn it would be a timeout draw, but because black can theoretically promote that pawn to a queen, or even a knight, and still be able to checkmate, white loses, and literally no player under 800 would lose that position as white, all he has to do is place a piece on a1 or a2 and leave it there, and black can't win, so a rule that allows a "virtual arbiter" to appeal and give you the draw instead of the loss if your time runs out, it would be tricker to determine where the fine line is that divides reasonable doubt from the burden of checkmating proof! I agree people should get like 1 appeal per 20 games or something in time outs like this, but it isn't as simple as people think!