I'd recommend providing details that argue that the alternatives (all of them) are inferior and that the simplicity about the federal government alternative (for that's what you want, not fifty different state programs overseen and “coordinated” [gag] by Washington) is a positive thing (in addition to showing where your plan doesn't have the defects or problems or at least the extent of them that enables you to argue the others are inferior) makes it a more effective alternative (the cost-savings claim always has been weak and is at best only temporary, anyway).

Some (and this is somewhat done by Conyers in his bill) here in the USA, the “magic wand” crowd, want to “solve” this by making spending on government health care “mandatory.” (Often they have nothing at all to say about taxes and how this spending otherwise would be paid for! Go ahead, wave that magic wand and feel nice and smug about your “solution.”)

Note that Social Security and Medicare already are not only unsustainable ([sigh] people who know have warned everyone else for years about this), and consume so much of the federal (true) budget already, but they will, once the demographics strike in earnest, in the state they're already in (without extending Medicare to more people, much less expanding Social Security into a more broad approach to a guaranteed income, a beloved goal even now, not just in the 1960s, of the far Left*) grow the federal government's share of the GDP to unheard-of, unnatural proportions. (That's how most people will feel about it, even if the Europe-loving democratic socialists believe otherwise.) By later this century, Social Security and Medicare in their current form already stand to consume all of the federal budget and a huge part of the GDP.

Rather than breathlessly and childishly rushing to want to expand the scope of these programs (with or without lies about this or that “crisis”), more forethought about how this would all be paid for is in order.

* I like reading the older literature with pink-cloud sky-castle philosophizing about how wonderfully “liberating” as well as uplifting a guaranteed income would be, as well as the far of all the employees (assuming everyone's vocational model is the Industrial Belt factory floor) made unemployed by computers and robots. Not much even then was said about how this would all be paid for somehow.

“Single-payer” remains weasel language. WHO'S THE PAYER? You never want a private company.

Now, what was interesting was what “GerSan” had to say. Many people currently would support expanding the safety net, but we're also wary of the openly transparent “public option” and loss of our choices (no matter what the people tell us who believe we're all as gullible as their favored audience) and rights. It's no different than the conflict we're seeing now because of Obama's overreach already. Many would be willing to pay for an expansion of government health care. But 69% (in the poll reported by a liberal network, of all things) report they are concerned already with the excessive intervention by the federal government into the economy and people's lives.

As far as the most up-to-date, “serious” (partially) effort for federal government health care, here is the Conyers “Medicare For All” legislation. (So many lefties seem so ignorant, I bet they've never read it.)

http://conyers.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=I...

http://www.johnconyers.com/hr676text

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc109/h676_ih.xml

[same as on Govtrack, etc.]

Elected officials need to stay in touch with the majority of those they represent, not based on income or financial status. Lobbying is a blight on our political system. And we wonder why we're sold out time and again to favor a small group of the rich. Wonder no more. Mystery solved.