Very important commentary on health insurance. Warning to all partisans right and left, what follows does not fit nicely with your cherished party's rhetoric and talking points.

Medicare-for-All Isnít the Solution for Universal Health Care
The health-care debate is moving to the left. But if progressives donít start sweating the details, weíre going to fail yet again.

I've been saying the following bit for a long time:

Thereís a common perception that because single-payer systems cost so much less than ours, passing such a scheme here would bring our spending in line with what the rest of the developed world shells out. But while there would be some savings on administrative costs, this gets the causal relationship wrong. Everyone else established their systems when they werenít spending a lot on health care, and then kept prices down through aggressive cost-controls.

In 2015, the United States spent 17.8 percent of its output on health care. The highest share ever for an advanced country establishing a universal system was the 9.2 percent that Switzerland spent in 1996, and they set up an Obamacare-like system of heavily regulated and subsidized private insurance. (They also spend more on health care today than anyone but us.)
A couple other key comments:

Donít be lulled into complacency by polls purporting to show that single payer is popularóforcing people to move into a new system is all but guaranteed to result in tons of resistance. And thatís not even considering the inevitable attacks from a conservative message machine that turned a little bit of money for voluntary end-of-life counseling into ďdeath panels.Ē Public opinion is dubious given that nobodyís talking about the difficulties inherent in making such a transition.
At a minimum, itís time to get past the idea that anyone who doesnít embrace Medicare-for-All, as itís currently defined, must be some kind of neoliberal hack.