> 1. A number of other developed countries have UHC while also allowing a private system as well - what is unique about the US that other countries' existing approach couldn't work here?

Mainly, expectations. I understand that UHC in European countries doesn’t cover all the things Americans assume it does.

Japan apparently keeps costs down by not using cutting-edge drugs. That’s not going to happen in the US.

The US Congress just isn’t good at keeping costs down.

> 2. ... why wouldn't providers choose to stop serving medicare patients under the pre-2026 system, where giving up medicare patients would be a far smaller loss than in a world where everyone has medicare?

They absolutely do. Many providers don’t accept Medicare. Very few providers accept Medicaid. The payments just aren’t high enough.

The US is dead last in terms of health outcomes among every developed country (despite spending far more), but you believe expectations will cause every other developed country's system to fail here? I guess your argument is that the propaganda machine pushing the idea that America's healthcare is not the worst in terms of outcomes (while also being about the most expensive), would prevent Americans from accepting no longer having the worst results and the highest costs?

> Many providers don’t accept Medicare. Very few providers accept Medicaid.

1. About the same percent accept Medicare as private insurance (85-90%, while ~70% accept Medicaid - is that "very few"?).

2. "Medicare for all" is one of the primary proposals being discussed.

3. Previous smaller expansions of government healthcare resulted in expanded provider capacity to handle them, not less, but your argument is that we'd see the opposite results from further expansion?

4. And in this new world where everyone had Medicare or similar, your argument is that providers would choose to ignore most patients, where they don't under the existing system where government-sponsored healthcare makes up a significantly smaller portion of the customer base?

5. And your argument is that if the government finds that healthcare providers contract to the point that outcomes remain the worst among every developed country, as they are today, that the government would be unwilling to make any changes (such as reimbursement rates) to address this?