> The political faction which opposed and supports the policy you point to does so for precisely the same reason it is opposed to the faction proposing single p

> The political faction which opposed and supports the policy you point to does so for precisely the same reason it is opposed to the faction proposing single payer; people voting for the faction that supports single payer would also vote out the faction supporting that policy. So, you are literally conflating two opposing things as the same thing. I disagree, but regardless of that appreciation the problem exists today when its smaller, if you had single-payer it will be a harder problem to fix. > Yes, and if you also have the government provide a default fully-public-funded option just like with school vouchers, you will have almost exactly recreated what Medicare already does for it's covered population It was an example to show how high government participation can lead to low regulatory burden, not an actual intended recipe for the US and its current or proposed system.