I'm watching the flood of rhetoric, argument, nitpicking and general emotion wear away the rock of reason in the health care discussion.
IF you use the Oregon Plan, where the doctors get together and evolve a list of treatments in order of efficacy and usefulness to the patient, and
IF you pass a single payer Medicare for All plan, and merely expand the existing payout system, and add the appropriate amount of taxes, then the increase in patients will be offset by the saving in emergency rooms, illness prevented and days of work lost, paper-pushing costs of multiple forms by excess office staff in doctor's offices, preventive medicine being phased out, salaries of medical professional bean-counters and high-salaried investment types trying to feed the shareholders, THEN you would end up with a far leaner system, and save such a chunk of money we'd be better off by far.
MEDICARE FOR ALL!
An aspect of the Oregon Plan:
In Oregon, as in all other US states, substantial segments of the population were uninsured and lacked coverage for even the most basic medical services. Kitzhaber contended that, in this context, it made little sense for the state to pay for costly services, such as transplants, that would benefit relatively few Medicaid recipients. He argued that, although Oregon could not conceivably afford to pay for every medical care service for every person, it could expand insurance to cover all the uninsured while controlling expenditures.