A multi-payer system is going to have systematic inefficiencies, even if the government helps with establishing prices. The WHO did a report in 2010 that showed that private insurance around the world had three times as high of administrative overhead costs as public healthcare systems, not to mention inefficiencies at the institutional level. That shows that this isn’t a problem that exists within developing countries, or developed countries, or countries with this or that system. Private systems are just more inefficient, and always will be. Same is true of privatized pension systems like Chile’s, where the overhead is much, much higher than the Social Security system.
Anyone that comes forward with a plan that is complex, this group is in this plan, this group in that plan, etc., it will necessarily be a most costly and less efficient system than single payer. You will have to put money aside in the system to manage the complexity. Not possible to realistically to have less complexity than a single payer system, again, if designed right. Single payer is cheap, if designed well, because it simplifies the system. Complexities in the system result in inefficiencies. And to the extent that there are inefficiencies at the institutional level (profits, high executive pay, marketing and lobbying costs, etc.), the inefficiencies in the system will be even worse.
Harris had okay answers (often vague), but I don’t trust her, no reason to. We have seen this movie so many times, she just went to Wall Street to ask for support, and she recently met with Clinton’s inner team in Martha’s Vineyard, hired her communications director (!) if I am not mistaken. Her record isn’t great either. She and people like Booker answering questions like this is a reflection of how much the country has shifted and how indefensible the status quo is. For that, we can thank activists, and I don’t care what anyone says, Bernie. But she is not as absolutely horrible as Clinton was, but what is that saying?