Really? Even the NHS system allows a parallel employer provided system to run alongside it, it's just only common for higher-paying jobs and those with US parent companies.
How is that the case when it reduces costs by 10%? Doesn't sound like we'll be spending any more than we already are.
Don't let perfect be the enemy of improvement.
Constant improvement is what the system needs, and anything that improves it is good and should be done.
If the proposal had no costs, it would obviously be worth pursuing.
But it's a historically disruptive proposal. For changes on that scale, we should be targeting significant fixes. 10% is just nibbling at the edge of the problem --- to put it another way, if the cost savings is 10%, then a few years after the change was enacted, we'd be right back where we are now.
You can't iterate on restructuring the economy; it's not a PHP program. You can iterate on incremental fixes, but that's not what M4A is.
All while providing comprehensive, universal healthcare, free at the point-of-service.
Also, Medicare For All would theoretically be able to command substantially lower drug prices by nearly monopolizing demand.
Notably, given the study's analysis focus on OECD countries, the United States is (said to be [3]) the only of the top 25 wealthiest countries and one of two total member countries to not provide universal healthcare coverage.
[1] https://www.peri.umass.edu/publication/item/1127-economic-an... [2] https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/blahous-costs-medicare... [3] https://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2015/sep/01/d...