Instead I just don't pay anyone, turn back when I encounter a paywall and look for someone's summary if I'm really interested.
I'd rather have a system that was just a cross-website web account.
The problem creating such a service is that most media houses believe that their content is the best thing since sliced bread and thus they often don't want to partner. Even though most of their content isn't that unique. Of course, some publications do have unique content, e.g. nyt, bloomberg.
I could see artifact being an interesting company to tackle this though (https://artifact.news/). They are already sending traffic to news sites and only serving what the user wants. If they now let me bypass paywalls for $20 that would be nice.
I do wish there was a better way for me to share an account across multiple news sites that let me properly pay for good journalism without these issues. I do subscribe to a very local news source that seems to handle this a lot better, but they also don't paywall (most) of their primary content.
In the meantime I do find it strange that so many sites wish to gain the advantage of advertising that they have put up an article on the web, without actually providing that article. I have no issue with paid content, but when that content gets listed in search engine results and social media links like a web page, but clicking on it does not behave like a web page, It feels something feels like something has broken from the idea of the linkable World Wide Web.
That said, I work in news media (and have been involved in building paywalls at different orgs - NYT and New Yorker). I know how money for these directly support journalism - salaries and the costs with associated with any story.
If you are skipping paywalls a lot, I would encourage you to pay for a subscription to at least one or two news sites you respect - bonus points if its a small or medium local newsroom that benefits!
For me that has been; NYTimes, New Yorker, Wired, Teen Vogue, and my wife's hometown paper in Illinois.