"Funding any government insurance/healthcare scheme undoubtedly comes with a tax increase, especially for top earners, but that’s not to say there will be less money in your pocket at the end of the day."

The worst thing single-payer advocates can do for their cause is any attempt to "pay for" it with taxation. Doing so could doom the cause to failure and could throw the US into a deep recession in the process.

Causing the involuntary unemployment of upward to a million people presently employed in insurance and related professions will be a serious "deflationary" event, regardless of the "savings" afforded by the more efficient system. The federal government has an infinite amount of dollars available to spend on the public purpose that improves the ability of workers to be productive. It needs no further "revenue" to fund anything that is available and priced in the US dollars it creates at will.

If we get mired down into the usual "payfor" debate such spending always creates, the distraction may cause us to miss those million people suddenly signing up for state unemployment. We should, instead, be talking about retraining and redirecting their available talents, not "paying for" something we have no need to pay for beyond finding the political will.