people in the US WITH company sponsored health plans. There's no question people without insurance in the US get a far poorer level of care than people in Europe with universal coverage. And the aggregate health outcomes suggest our average level of care is (slightly) below that of developed countries with universal coverage (albeit at a much higher cost). But I'd be surprised (shocked actually) if people with company sponsored health insurance in the US had worse outcomes on average than people in developed countries with universal health insurance.

My expectation is that universal coverage -- if private pay / private insurance is illegal -- would make the level of care (as measured by outcomes, wait times/responsiveness, etc) go DOWN for people currently with company sponsored plans. But level of care would go WAY up for people without insurance. Overall, our level of care (again measured by outcomes) would probably go up, but proponents of this plan need to understand/acknowledge that we will be lowering levels of care for a not trivial portion of the population.

I don't have a problem with medicare for all. I do have a problem if you tell me I can't contract with a physician outside (or on top of) the medicare for all system if I choose to do so.