Medicare For All frightens me, to be perfectly honest. I've seen the history of the state of PA's commitment to public K-12 education and the state college (now Universities) system.. There was a stated level of commitment at the beginning, but as state legislators didn't want to raise taxes for political reasons, the state % of the costs of K-12 and state college costs have plummeted. I've seen how the federal government has failed to meet its commitments to adequately fund the Indian healthcare and Veterans Healthcare systems. Congresspersons don't like raising taxes and other spending lobbies are always stronger. I've got relatives in England. They hear 'not medically necessary' from the National Health Service for things where we get service. Same for relatives in Canada.
I want universal healthcare. I think the most direct way is the moderate Democratic contenders' proposed restoration of Obamacare with a public option. I see no reason to eliminate private healthcare. I think that gives a backstop protection against reduced federal government funding leading to unacceptable rationing of service. The taxes needed to replace employer provided health insurance would be enormous. It also would be a huge give-away to corporations -- I don't for a second think that workers would get the money back in higher wages, nor that the top 1% or top !0% could make up the difference through either higher tax rates or a wealth tax on the upper 0.1%. If I've learned anything from following both politics and taxation (wife was a CPA) it's that the wealthy and very high earners will find a way to avoid paying as much of the freight as Senator Warner (and to a somewhat lesser extent, Bernie) suggest. Yes, we need to reduce the cost of health services. The government bargaining the price of pharmaceuticals and medical equipment/supplies is a great place to start (I fully agree that drug companies need to pay for research; I also agree that the whole first world, not just the USA consumer should do the paying).
I don't mind the lower tax rates on corporations -- id does make our industry more competitive and add jobs, but it needs to be coupled with all income (including dividends and capital gains) taxed at the same rate. This isn't a radical lefty schem, Reagan did it. There also needs to be a minimum annual tax rate on corporate profits.
I think Dem presidents have been far better at budget balancing than the Rs. Both the GWB and Trump tax cuts were ridiculous give-aways to the top 10%, at a time when the state of the economy and funds available for capital investment did not suggest the need for a tax cut. Of the two, the Trump cut made the least sense. I don't recall a Dem administration saying what the leaders of the GWB administration said: "Reagan taught us that deficits don't matter." You can substitute FDR or JFK of Reagan, I just don't recall any Dem administration taking such a philosophical approach, although LBJ certainly followed it in practice.
Julio is correct that change is inevitable.... and, it is necessary. We lead longer and more prosperous lives today than in the past because change has happened. Change which was disruptive at times and from which not all got immediate benefits -- some families waited a generation. My personal philosophy, however, is that as humans, especially as we grow older, can only tolerate some maximum rate of change. The more confident people are about their future, the higher a change rate they can tolerate, but there is always a limit. Push change faster than that limit and bad things, like fear and disunity and distrust, happen to a society. This is inevitable: there will always be those who immediately benefit from change and those who immediately suffer. If a society/economy needs a high rate of change to prosper, then a safety net for those who will suffer in the short term makes a high rate of change more acceptable.
Past problems with the future financial viability of Social Security and Medicare were solved. Politicians had the courage to do the obvious trade-offs: higher payroll taxes, raise the lncome limit for which the taxes apply, raise the age to receive benefits in small increments. My faith in today's politicians to enact the needed policy changes is not high.