I can't detect the actual suggestion here. There is already a minimal level of care given to everyone for free (practically, if not nominally) with the caveats

I can't detect the actual suggestion here. There is already a minimal level of care given to everyone for free (practically, if not nominally) with the caveats given in the extended passage from one of the papers: that it may not be at a distance convenient to people (which for people in poverty often means it is actually not available); that only rarely covers vision, dental, etc; that has extended wait times as compared to private insurance; and that provides emergency services (like appendectomies.) That is literally the status quo, especially considering the many limitations being placed on debt collectors and credit reporting agencies in relation to medical debt. And if 2/3 of people will still have private insurance, the obvious pressure will be for services covered (which in this plan are TBD) to go to zero, and wait times to go to infinity. And even the 2/3 is simply a demand of the authors, because there's no way mentioned in this summary to enforce that arbitrary number. I suspect that it is a pure fantasy, based on the imagined attractiveness of this vague imagined healthcare coverage. Amusingly, from my perspective some targeting of this 2/3 number would be an interesting plan (aside from the absolute arbitrariness of the choice.) If private insurance coverage creeping above 2/3 triggered an expansion of services, with a penalty that not keeping the number below that target would force a cash award to uninsured people of an estimated value of the level of service that would have attracted at least a third of people to drop private insurance, now that would be interesting. A mechanism like that could be the pressure towards the baseline level of service that is assumed to just happen here. Still, why 2/3? Why would we reserve any room for private insurance covering basic care? Private insurance for luxury accommodations while having basic care, fine, but that's not healthcare insurance, that's hotel insurance. Private insurance for fancy cosmetic dental care, fine, there's a difference between healthy and beautiful, and teeth break all the time. But insurance for plastic surgery? Who would buy that? Just buy the plastic surgery. If you're disfigured, that should certainly be covered by the basic plan, no? No surprise that the authors worked on ACA, which was just a Heritage Foundation plan, not some original creation. A completely amorphous "public option" doesn't improve it, and the same cowards and straw activists that backed away from it when ACA was passed would back away from it again. 75% of the people in the institutions on both sides of the issue of a "public option" would be literally the same, and without the unlimited mandate that Obama successfully steered into the toilet. The Medicaid expansion jammed into ACA provides most of this hypothetical basic health coverage, and if you want more, just continue to expand Medicaid. Can a prescription to fix the US healthcare system have no coverage details and no plan to lower healthcare costs?