Reducing the over-all cost isn't necessarily the only goal. One goal could also be to have the highest quality care in the world, which we have today.
>Single-payer coverage doesn't necessarily dry up the market for private insurance, either.
Comparing the private insurance industry in the US and Canada or UK is laughable. The fact that it exists is not the same as saying it isn't dried up.
The US population does not receive the highest quality healthcare in the world.
If you are rich and sick, there's a decent chance that the world's leading specialist on your illness will be in the US. If you are poor and sick, you will receive higher quality healthcare in many other developed countries.
These are not the same thing; you are conflating them, I assume to support an ideological point. Just look at any ranking of healthcare outcomes for developed nations.
Yes, I addressed that. Look at our obesity rates. That has almost nothing to do with healthcare access and almost everything to do with our average lifespan.
Basically: a) "poor people tend to be more obese" b) "healthcare costs are a problem for people who struggle financially"
Single-payer coverage doesn't necessarily dry up the market for private insurance, either. Citizens of Canada and other countries have access to additional coverage that covers faster access to medical care and more expensive procedures. So yes, you can have your cake and eat it, too, if you set things up right.