Sadly, the answer to healthcare in the U.S. is not at the federal level. All hospitals would be out of business within a few years if they were reliant on federal reimbursement. I know the pediatric space well, and as it is all children's hospitals are only profitable due to charitable giving as CHIP and Medicaid payments account for roughly 70% of their reimbursement revenue. You can say that "doctors need to make less" but that's just not a realistic short-term plan, nor is it the main driver of cost at a hospital. Long-term, AI can replace many (most?) physician decision making which will drive down physician compensation and demand.This is already happening in radiology.
Single-payer or Medicare/Medicaid for all can work, but in my opinion, only on a much more local level that the US federally. The country is just too large, both from a population standpoint and a pure geography standpoint. We are also substantively more diverse than any other country we can use as a model. The UK is roughly the size of Minnesota and ~90% white. If you want to centrally plan that health system, you can; Minnesota could come up with a pretty good plan for its healthcare system, I betcha.
To continue the comparison, there's only one truly world-class pediatric hospital in the UK - Great Ormond Street in London. The NHS can centralize all truly high-acuity care and specialists in one location as they only need patients to travel a maximum of a few hours to arrive at the point of care. That model just can't work in the US, where you have many times greater travel times to get to location. There are probably 10 Great Ormond Street equivalents in the US. Patients require local care. If you are born in Colorado Springs with a congenital heart defect, we can't fly you to Boston Children's for a surgery as a system.
Just another example of the diversity of care we have to deal with here - my wife is a Pediatric Hematologist/Oncologist. There's another physician she works with who specializes in Sickle Cell Disease (SCD) in children, which only presents in individuals of sub-Sahara African descent (very rarely in middle eastern). This physician is trained/from the UK, but left London as SCD is classified as an "exotic disease" by the NHS as there are so few people in the UK with SCD (<500 new diagnosis per year in the entire country). She sees exponentially more patients with SCD in a large east coast pediatric hospital and can run studies that would take years in the UK.
What's the point? Every country is different and unique and models are hard to replicate. That is true in regions of the US too. If we want to actually create better healthcare in the US, we have to push decisions about healthcare down to the lowest levels feasible. To me, the state level is where most of the decisions should be made, and the federal government would be better off pushing as much money down the system closer to patients. People don't actually travel outside of their counties for healthcare - especially patients who are either on Medicare or Medicaid. If certain states - I believe Oregon did this - want to offer Medicaid for all, they should be able to with larger pools of federal funding than current levels.Other states that have large levels of economic disparity, like California, might want to think about substantially higher reimbursement rates for govt funded payers, but means test those benefits and force those with means to obtain their own insurance. States just have very divergent health issues, and there wont be a federal system smart enough or flexible enough to address needs adequately. Voters and local government should be both in charge of and accountable for what are, at the end of the day their tax dollars and their health(care).