I can’t take on each of the things you mentioned but single payer is inefficient in the countries that have it. Long waits, people dying for long waits happen. Now, I had a long exchange with Adroit over on another thread, which goes over costs of stuff. Adroit has responded, but I hope you take a look at this, scroll down some, it starts off talking about Obamacare, but also goes into the single payer debate. There are two posts that I did. Biden takes 32-point lead over Sanders - #71 by matt1618
And I do go over the inefficiencies that are prominent in the single payer. Now, we can get universal health care without having to go to single payer. By looking at that, you can get some ideas that I have. Many of the costs that are more expensive in the US, is because of the US being highest in the world in obesity, by far have the most mris and mammograms, which are more expensive, we have worse drug addictions that the rest of the world, that also leads to more expenses than other countries, and those problems will exist regardless of whether it is employer based or single payer.
As I noted, in my response (2nd post), we spend 3.5 trillion total, but you know medicare, Medicaid, VA, chip program, other public health care spending is 1.6 billion and there are rampant inefficiencies in the US public health care system. But the private health care system spends 1.9 billion to cover 188 million people, and is more effective in our system, than public. To imagine that the public system can cover 188 million for cheaper than the additional 1.9 billion that is paid right now is not possible, it will probably be more expensive than what we pay now (more than 3.5$ billion). And the taxes would go way, way, way up to make up for it. Elimination of private insurance would be death to many people. In medicare right now, and with the expansion of Medicaid, people died waiting, check out my documentation. 30% of health facilities are not taking Medicaid payments because it is underpaying. The private health insurance is making up the difference. Even in Medicare, many medicare people have to have private insurance because medicare does not take care of enough medical expenses. In addition, because of medicare/Medicaid underpayment, private insurance has to make up for it. In UK and Sweden, where they have single payer, many who can afford it get private insurance to make up for the public sector inefficiencies. In Canada we get about 70,000 a year coming to the US to get care in US facilities because they don’t want to wait. You will see that documented in my piece.
Long wait times goes hand in hand with public insurance only. Now, I see the best way of getting universal health care is borrowing ideas from Switzerland, Japan, Germany, they remain predominantly private but don’t have the waiting lines (which leads to people going blind in UK), and other things that I document. They have universal care, but its basis is not single payer, but get the right mix so that everybody is covered. So people in the situations that you mention can still get help. Yes, you still have to have some government mix for people such as you mentioned, but still retain private care overall.
One of the things that I recommended was that we get a true market oriented health care, where those people who are employed and their employers who put money paying insurance company and you have to take what they give you. Instead of that, the employer gives that amount that they pay the insurance company, to you in the form of a health care voucher, and you use that voucher plus what you already pay in insurance, if there is more competition, all the companies will compete with each other to be more cost effective. You get to choose, and people get plans that fit them. In the public system, there is no competition so waste is more prevalent.