The systems you cite are amenable to top down regulatory control. Medicine is not. There are conflicting and complex concerns with every situation. There is no algorithmic regulatory approach which is what you will wind up with.
What system, what "book" of regulations will substitute for medical judgement? You might reply that that isn't what single payer is, but I'll state categorically that you are wrong. Cost containment and political influence will be the priorities. When the government through medicare badgers providers because they aren't giving a medication indicated to someone in a geriatric facility that's good? Why should providers have to spend hours again and again saying the the medication isn't working or is being harmful time and again? What bureaucrat is qualified to make that call? That's what happens now. Regulations trump all other concerns by pain of punishment. If the patient suffers or dies the regulations must be followed. This isn't a case where a doc might subvert insurance rules to help a patient and perhaps get his payment taken back, this would be committing a crime. That's how it works and if you think politicians can keep their hands out of actual practice you'll have a hard time finding where they won't "help".
That little biblical language piece is not a dig, it's the mentality of those who do not understand the disconnect between politics and practice. There won't be funding without control, and control without political aim, and punishment for those who follow conscience over regulation. This isn't France or some other country where the health care system evolved over time with their society and government. This is a take over.
You want that? Fine. Here's my terms (not that anyone will pay attention)
First, remove politicians from formulating health care policy. Have a panel of experts nominated by professional organizations who are noted for their character and capability. That would be physicians, pharmacists, nurses, all kinds of practitioners who have high standards and have proven effective. Do the same with consumer advocates. Choose those who know the system, who have demonstrated a concern for the patient. Get actuaries who understand real world costs. Technical experts in information technology. People who are able to integrate complex systems, and throw in the kitchen sink while we are at it. Give it the imperative we did to the Manhattan Project and the authority to examine government experts and question the bureaucrats and private sector providers and insurance representatives. Give them teeth.
Task them with these goals.
First- Determine the true state of American health care. Who has insurance, who does not and why. Do not let politicians interfere at all in this process.
Second- Find out what the expectations of the public are. What do people believe vs reality. What is the level of understand in the public, private and government segments. Do not let politicians interfere at all in this process.
Third- Examine and question the status quo. What is right and wrong with what we have. Dig down in the levels of our society to determine why that is. What are reasonable expectations given real world resources and Constitutional constraints. Do not let politicians interfere at all in this process.
Fourth- Determine what provides the best care outcomes and what costs are associated with that. People here cry about costs in a vacuum of ignorance. I don't care about Europe. I care about care here. What can be done to contain costs while giving quality care? Is there a regulatory issue so government is hurting this? Are the procedures redundant? Are we disseminating knowledge as effectively as possible? What can be done to provide those who make decisions the knowledge of a patients history and treatment in a timely and complete way? What about legal concerns? Does fear of lawsuits cause unnecessary testing? Is there corruption at any level influencing this? What can be done? What are the options here? How do we do this where there are regulatory conflicts or matters of conflicting best interests? Do not let politicians interfere at all in this process.
Fifth- How does this all fit together? What are our best options for reform and financing? How do we reconcile this with Constitutional rights of all involved? What will practioners have to change? The government? What about the people themselves? How do we adjust these considerations for best outcome? What will the real costs be and how are they distributed? What are the limitations on what one ought to expect? What will it cost for end of life treatment? Who decides who will pull the plug? What are the limits? How will ethical concerns be handled? Do not let politicians interfere at all in this process.
Sixth- Get everyone together and hammer out language with legislative experts to minimize the wiggle room for Congress in these documents, and to play a series of "what if's" to minimize the law of unintended consequences. Do not let politicians interfere al all with this process.
Seventh- Give all this material to Congress and make it public at the same time. Do not give DC advance notice to prepare to dismember the effort for partisan purposes. Provide a spokesman or a group tasked to give answers to the public, the government and private concerns. Do not let the politicians interfere at all with this process.
Eight- Give this panel, commission, whatever you call it, the ability to question publicly what is being done by Congress. Make sure there are no "closed door" sessions. This whole process must be done in an open way and neither Republican or Democratic parties hack away unseen.
At this point the politicians can interfere with the best possible policies or approve them. If the latter happens let me know and I'll back single payer/UHC whatever you call it.
This isn't rocket science. No, it's far far more complex. I am the Evil One. I do not believe in the True Faith.