I mean, call a spade a spade. Single Payor can have programs set up to specifically address specific issues, like turnaround time to see a GP when sick (e.g vir

I mean, call a spade a spade. Single Payor can have programs set up to specifically address specific issues, like turnaround time to see a GP when sick (e.g virtual visits to clear up demand that can be routed that way). Whereas the disjointed system the US currently "enjoys" STILL has GP rationing -- and worse, whole specialties disappearing or otherwise rejecting a payor because it sucks. It's bogus that "single payor won't cover people in 60s/70s with chronic needs." That is 100% a policy decision. Versus the entrenched broken system we have now, where often needs are covered despite urgency.