You're misunderstanding. I'm not saying that all are bad because (at least) a few have a particular feature. I'm citing two examples to show that the "progressive" movement in healthcare shows a trend toward that bad feature. This should be a warning to us about a) the motivations of those pushing this; and b) should we really decide that "reform" is necessary, we ought to guard against this.
Except of course for the however many millions that can't actually access any of this medical treatment. That's the whole crux of things
If that's the crux of this, then you've lost the argument. The premise that you're working from is simply erroneous. It is untrue that many millions cannot access any of these treatments. In the USA, anyone can walk into the emergency room and get treated. While it's true that esoteric treatments having sky-high prices (say, heart transplant) won't be provided, all of the basic services will be provided even to those unable to pay on their own.
FWIW, my wife is the Manager of Budget and Reimbursement at a largish urban hospital. She spends a fair amount of her time coordinating with Medicaid to get the hospital reimbursed for the cost of treating charity and bad debt cases. You seem to be saying that this is all a figment of her imagination, that the hospital is actually turning away all of these people. That ain't so: even the homeless get treatment in America, with the system we have today.
It does, actually. It shows that the specifics of one particular system aren't even true across the same country.
For practical purposes, that's all but a prohibition.
No, it's a feature of that particular system. You're discounting the entire idea of single payer health care because one particular version has a component that you don't agree with. You're being intentionally deceptive in your argument.
everyone has access to better healthcare than anyone could get 60-70 years ago
...including those of us in government run systems, moot point.
If those researching new treatments can't sell those treatments because the gov't puts a wet blanket on the industry, then the treatments will never be sought.
By this logic, there should be effectively no medical research occurring anywhere else in the world save the US. This isn't the case.
And that's certainly no better than the Adam Smith's invisible hand could do.
Except of course for the however many millions that can't actually access any of this medical treatment. That's the whole crux of things: For those able, the trade-offs between a government run system and the US system are trivial overall. The major downsides in the US system have no equivalent in other systems.