Yes. My wife has personally endured doctors who prescribed drugs and tests that were useless. Fortunately, we found one on the third try who seems interested in being efficient and practical. The first two asked her to take inappropriate therapies and discouraged her use of generic drugs. We experienced a time when a doc wanted to do expensive tests and surgery on her back when, at our insistence, simple kyphoplasty (sp?) fixed the problem in an hour. Maybe I shouldn't extrapolate our experiences, but we've heard plenty of similar stories. I won't even start to go into what a few medical facilities did to a special needs aunt.
Insurance is shared risk, but it's not designed to have 50% of the people pay for everyone. I choose not to carry collision insurance. It's there if I want it, but I'd rather play the odds and assume the risk myself. Would that be a choice under single payer? Could someone pay less taxes and assume his own medical cost risk? Don't think so. To your point, I don't know of any other insurance where some people pay the premiums for everyone. House, life, auto, flood, crop, boat,....they all are paid for by the insured. To lump all insurance with single payer government controlled health pay outs is a silly contention.
Sounds like you have had bad experiences with docs. Since I have been retired for awhile, I hope that isn't common, but it might be. I haven't had that experience with my own care under Medicare, but maybe that is because I come in knowledgeable and they see that M.D. after my name. I don't really know.
No, Jet. 50% of the people pay for 100% of the people, not just the 50% who are uncovered. It includes all those who are insured already. In the case of single payer, everyone who has income would pay by taxes proportional to income. Right now, those who pay for insurance still pay for those who don't with their taxes via Medicaid and via other losses to society caused by early death and illness, police calls, ambulances, ER, and many other things. That stuff is costly to society, and it won't change. So, you are still paying for it. Of course, that is moral, IMO. People should not be left to die because they are unemployed due to not being able to find work or disabled or retarded or old. Very few are just freeloaders who refuse to look for work if they are able. The idea that there are vast numbers of those types is a myth. We all pay for the VA, because the recipients of that care have served our country, often at the expense of their own limbs and brains. But even for those people who cannot pay, it is worth it to help those who are truly without options through no fault of their own. It is a small price to pay, I think. And once again, businesses would not be obligated to pay for health insurance as a benefit. That would increase profits and serve captalism, especially small businesses.
As to your point about inappropriate medical care, a single payer program would have proscribed rules as to what can be covered or treated, even rules about generic drugs. Challenges to the rules would be standard. In that sense, it would improve care and prevent most cases like you describe with your wife. Before you start shouting that that is "government control of medicine", ask yourself: "Isn't that what private insurace companies already do...all the time?" The answer is very much "yes." No insurance program would do otherwise, private or public.