But I'm not sure it's too legitimate to claim it is simply "having faith". There are many countries that are using a single-payer system already, which we can use as a basis for comparison.
There are and they generally run well. That it co-evolved with their legal and economic system, that there aren't large inner city problems of violence, that population density here as opposed to Europe aren't things to mention. We have on average a shorter life expectancy, but if one compensates for violent deaths that improves significantly. If one looks at lifestyle and weight then it's gone. Others will tell you that costs are less in Europe and blame insurance companies, but they don't earn nearly enough to account for the differences. What really is going on? What would be most beneficial? Give the whole thing to the government. Why? Because other nations with a completely different demographic, social structure, political and economic system, Constitution and on and on , have it and it works for them. Well they have public education and so do we. If the government is inherently superior then we should have the same results and costs in LA as the Germans do in their country. We don't. That's because of factors other than education itself that nonetheless influencing factors.
So... what I suggested is that we have a group of professionals recognized by their peers as being superior in ability and character which would include not only practitioners, but advocates, actuaries, and others who have a clue to what's going on here. They would examine our system, our strengths and weaknesses, our needs and make an analysis and propose solutions with the idea of resource allocation, cost containment which doesn't sabotage care, future educational needs, the works. Develop plans which give a good estimate as to costs, their advantages and disadvantages of each. Then people familiar with the particulars of our legal system and regulations work with providers and the others to craft a package including the necessary language for implementation which achieves the desired outcomes while minimizing the law of unintended consequences. A very detailed analysis indeed of the most complex organization that exists, US health care. Present it to the public and Congress and THEN have Congress legislate. If they want to play politics then they would have to justify to the public just why they are making changes. That's on them.
The response? "Oh we don't need that, just implement single payer. It works everywhere else."
That's the Dems.
The Republicans? "Health care? We heard of that."
Neither is very helpful, but very typical of how partisan minds work.
Does that recommend the Republicans? Not at all, but there seems to be a deeper problem. The parties have become the most important thing to themselves, and our government is run by parties. Consequently we have sniping and bad solutions to make political hay and all the while there are no good solutions. While one side goes off the deep end, the other wants to make changes without due consideration of consequences or indeed if the changes are beneficial at all.
When neither benefits the nation, when both are out for themselves no matter what they claim, then I haven't time for them at all. Equally insane may not be the case, but useless and potentially harmful? That applies to both.