Single payer isn't free or a panacea to health care costs, and there are problems in Canada, but the problems you cite are also problems in the US. I end with some thoughts on how free markets and optimization can save us lots of money, so stick with me.

That's rural ERs in Canada in the article you link. Same problem is happening in the US, because many doctors want to live in a city, where there is potential job growth and a host of other benefits, rather then out in rural hospitals, which usually can't pay very much.

This is a systemic issue that affects all rural health care, not a problem with Canadian health care specifically.

Here's a couple of articles from just August about the issue in the US.

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2017/aug/26/rural-america-s...
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/new-program-aims-...

As for wait times, again, also a problem in America. Even if we moved to single payer, it would probably get worse before it got better, since it means more people with health insurance for the same number of doctors in the short term, but then the market would likely correct that. Heres an article on us wait times.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2017/03/19/doctor-w...

Demand for health care will continue to increase as baby boomers age, new techniques arrive etc. That will always drive up prices or other costs, regardless of if we go single payer or keep the current system here. And it's a big enough system no matter what you do that there will always be some waste and greed that can't be cut.

Currently though, what is waste/greed and what is actual increasing cost is very unclear because PBMs and other companies keep things like drug pricing confidential.

If conservatives want to fight single payer, they need to lay out an alternative strategy that will actually keep costs in line without sacrificing care.

Single payer or our current system, most of the health care dollar doesn't go to the insurer under obama care (obamacare mandated a minimum of 80% for smaller carriers or 85% for larger ones, previously it was 50 - 60% so we did get some savings there), so if you want to cut costs, we really need to cut it at the middle or at the provider/manufacturer level.

Now single payer could save something, because operating costs are still higher then in simpler systems (https://newsatjama.jama.com/2017/04/25/jama-forum-where-does...). But single payer has a lot of requirements to be cheaper like the govermnent being allowed to negotiate drug and provider prices. These are things that, except on the state level, most likely would be heavily opposed by medical providers.

Total costs for the health care procedures/devices/drugs/providers are higher to insurers, and that's where most of your money goes, and as any developer will tell you, if you want to optimize, you want to optimize where you are spending the most be it in dollars or in processor cycles. So we have to cut that. And that's what conservatives should be focusing on, cutting the underlying costs, and making the pbms and brokers in the middle be transparent, so that cost savings get to insurers which can then be regulated at the state level.

My first suggestion to that end is always going to be more transparency to allow for a better free market, but that means adding and enforcing regulations to provide transparency, something which conservatives have resisted, despite the success of regulated open markets like stock exchanges. Drug companies spend more of their money on marketing then R&D, ( http://www.randalolson.com/2015/03/01/design-critique-puttin... ) so there is plenty of fat to cut before you start affecting R&d expenditures, and drug companies are one of the biggest beneficiaries of US research grants and tax benefits. Even a congressional committee investigation would be a start. So it's still possible to keep private insurers, but conservatives need to step up.