I personally think Medicare for all could potentially be a good system. But this article doesn't make a good argument at all.

> Voters need to understand that this cost objection is specious. That’s because, as experience in many countries has demonstrated, the total cost of providing health coverage under the single-payer approach is actually substantially lower than under the current system in the United States.

Not a valid comparison. They literally give examples of three liberal states where there were cost concerns. And the response? It is not to compare to states where single payer actually worked, bit compare it to different countries with widely different budgets and levels of centralization from medical research, medical school to employment of doctors. Just not a valid comparison at all.

> It is a bedrock economic principle that if we can find a way to do something more efficiently, it’s possible for everyone to come out ahead.

Useless fluff statement

> By analogy, suppose that your state’s government took over road maintenance from the county governments within it, in the process reducing total maintenance costs by 30 percent. Your state taxes would obviously have to go up under this arrangement

How is this an "obvious " point? Need some justification for this very important point !

Hence this statement doesn't follow as the premise is not established

> Likewise, it makes no sense to oppose single-payer on the grounds that it would require additional tax revenue.

.

> One is that administrative costs average only about 2 percent of total expenses under a single-payer program like Medicare, less than one-sixth the corresponding percentage for many private insurers. Single-payer systems also spend virtually nothing on competitive advertising, which can account for more than 15 percent of total expenses for private insurers.

Finally, some relevant fact and justified points. These are good points in favor of single payer.

> The most important source of cost savings under single-payer is that large government entities are able to negotiate much more favorable terms with service providers

Ah this is infuriating. The link compares USA to other countries. Why not given evidence of Medicare compared to private insurers? That would be such a strong point in favor of Medicare. I just don't think you can compare the entirety of the American healthcare system to other countries without controlling for the wide disparity in the systems as mentioned above.

> In 2012, for example, the average cost of coronary bypass surgery was more than $73,000 in the United States but less than $23,000 in France

Sad reality but again this comparison is meaningless without controlling. Why not compare states with single payer with states that don't have it? Or why not compare Medicare bypass surgeries with those of private? If none of those support the argument for single payer, then at least control for the variables when comparing countries... Otherwise the comparison is just lazy (or worse, just narrative building ).

> In short, the evidence is clear that single-payer delivers quality care at significantly lower cost than the current American hybrid system. It thus makes no sense to reject single-payer on the grounds that it would require higher tax revenues. That’s true, of course, but it’s an irrelevant objection.

I agree with this point, I am willing to take a higher tax hit to support single payer but the tax question is not an irrelevant object at all!

Anyway, sorry if I sound bitter. I really want to see the US have a robust single payer system that respects it's ability to innovate with drugs and provide great healthcare to everyone. I just hope defenders of single payer (especially economics professors like the author ) can build a better case for it. I hope.