Koch Study Concludes That Medicare For All Would Cost An Arm And A Leg, But Save Money

Everybody's busy spinning this against everybody else, but it's consistent with what I've said / guessed for a couple of years now: something like a single-payer solution would be cheaper/more efficient than a market-based solution...but still too expensive and not obviously preferable.
   My general guess is: contrary to what many conservatives think, there's a lot of stuff the government does better. It's absurd to think that somehow the government is magically incompetent. That ridiculous belief makes the decision artificially easy. In fact, health care is exactly the kind of thing the government might be able to do more efficiently.
   However, it would mean another massive transfer of power to the government. But you have to draw the line somewhere. The left's mistake is, to my mind, worse than the right's mistake: it seems to see no problem in steadily increasing the size of government, and ceding more and more power to it. In general, the logic of the left always pushes for more. As soon as we got Obamacare, we started hearing about guaranteed basic income. As soon as we got same-sex marriage, we were barraged with demands about transgenderism, with its integrated public locker rooms and so forth. So we know that medicare for all will not be the final suggestion--it's just the next suggestion. But even if government can do each individual thing better, that doesn't mean we should grant it power to do all the things.
   Those thoughts, even if right, don't settle the question or anything. I'm just saying: I'm not surprised. Government does lots of things better. But you have to draw the line somewhere. But where, I don't know.