Well sure, theoretically budgets are limited. But (1) the entire "profit" of insurance companies, and other middle-men, today becomes extra cash in the budget.

Well sure, theoretically budgets are limited. But (1) the entire "profit" of insurance companies, and other middle-men, today becomes extra cash in the budget. Which if OP is to be believed, would be upwards of a 25% increase - just from insurance companies. (2) A single-payer would have more negotiation power to actually drive down costs, because if the single-payer doesn't buy your goods, there is no market for you to sell to. (3) There is no expectation of out-of-pocket expenses, so no one was to worry about a massive bill after losing a family member. Also, a key difference with single-payer healthcare is (generally) the distribution and accountability of program. We'd dispense with "preexisting conditions" and "in/out of network" and provide this service to everyone. Every single person would be eligible, it'd truly be for the citizenry. Because of this, coverage becomes a legislative practice, and if coverage or care is not meeting expectations, it can be changed. (also, UnitedHealth profit margin was consistently > 20% pre-2024)