Because fuck people?

Isn't the wall the biggest reason why the Gov. is shutting down?

You can't fund Medicare. You just go broke trying because it's a rolling expenditure, @ARikozuM. Also, GoFundMe is made for individual efforts. If you're truly concerned, start one yourself  I still wouldn't use Medicare if I had a choice. though - rather pay for a decent health care plan myself than have someone else poking their bureaucratic nose(s) into what's included in my chosen plan...

So does the wall. You need manpower to search for defects and intrusions, make repairs, etc. Medical coverage protects the people and keeps them happier, healthier. 

There's also a large advantage to fighting corporations for drugs and services when there's only one entity and you can either join and benefit or not join and fail. The government is allowed to partake in capitalism and free markets as its own corporation, in my opinion. 

@ARikozuM Welp, they're involved now and the price of many pharmaceuticals hasn't dropped much (if any). Not seeing how that works. If you're talking about trust-busting and wrecking monopolies, that was done in the past. But it didn't require the government to become a competitor in the private market. In fact, if the government ever gets involved, that isn't usually a good sign...

Medicare is a provider that is government-funded. They negotiate prices and pay out accordingly and will allow almost any procedures that are necessary. Prices to the patient/consumer are not high at all. This is what the American people need as hospitals, pharma, and insurance companies try to inflate service costs while making the largest margins that they can. There's also practice insurance for doctors, tuition, etc, that needs to come down to sustain the industries as we move forward once the baby boomers are gone and not as many people are in the system.

Then perhaps we should concentrate solely on bringing down the prices of medical treatments, doctors visits, pharmaceuticals, etc. for consumers (in the long-term) instead of simply attempting to temporarily bolster what I can pay on the premium and renegotiating the price every time I need an operation. It sounds more like treating a symptom than actually targeting the issue at hand...

The right-wing will say that anything directly interfering with the free market is amoral. The prices for procedures should never have hit this point. There's a barrier of entry created to keep newcomers (students) in debt, so that they're forced to work for high profits, and the insurance companies want to pay as little as possible. This isn't what healthcare should be. You should be paid on quality of care, not quantity, like in Canada. If there's only one set price for a procedure under MFA, that's the only price any hospital can charge or attempt to. If the government negotiates for amoxicillin pills at $1/ea, it's $1/ea no matter where you go. If you buy any health insurance, it has to exceed the base MFA benefits. It not only serves as an important lower- to middle-income supplement but also serves to bolster insurance standards. 

There's also the fact that there's way too many lines of codework in the American healthcare system. There's billing, coding, admin, auditors, etc. MFA would solve this issue by having just one system from start to finish rather than today's system of "find the loophole". 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2017/03/02/more-government-is-not-the-remedy-for-high-drug-prices/#628c5ae92bb5

The market will not take kindly to it. Negotiation only lasts as long as the negotiator stays in the game - which also costs tax dollars. If you go for the actual source of the problem instead, you wouldn't have to negotiate prices at that level (and alter the economy).

https://theintercept.com/2018/07/30/medicare-for-all-cost-health-care-wages/

More government wasn't "the answer" to the housing and college loans... Look what happened to those after privatization. All of the other world powers have a universal healthcare system. Our northern neighbor has it. The UK has it. The nordic nations have it. Wow! They pay more in taxes? Who cares? We can increase tax in brackets as we've done and get more out of our money at the same time. 

@ARikozuM You need to read more into your own claims:

• https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2018/03/07/591128836/u-k-hospitals-are-overburdened-but-the-british-love-their-universal-health-care
• https://www.quora.com/Why-are-Nordic-countries-able-to-have-universal-healthcare-while-the-USA-cannot/answer/Michael-Depietro
• https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/25/opinion/sunday/us-vs-nordic-health-care.html

On the last link, read the entire page. Here is one snippet that I was able to find off the bat:

• "There are many differences between the United States and Finland. Finland has a population of about 5.5 million, while that of the United States is about 325 million. So the size of a bureaucracy to support a centralized health care system in the United States would be staggeringly large. And there is nothing in our current centralized medical care systems (Veterans Affairs, Medicaid) that would inspire confidence in the efficiency or lack of fraud.
• Another difference is that Finland is very homogeneous; the United States is not. According to a 2007 study by Steffen Mau of the University of Bremen, the more mixed the population, the less the people trust or support state welfare. And all this is aside from questions of freedom or rights."

While it may be irresponsible to avoid purchasing healthcare due to cost, there are also less reasons to avoid purchasing in the first place. I just recently went searching for private healthcare plans (including pooled resource based solutions), and managed to find some coverage plans that went below 50 USD per month. I could have afforded that while working for Amazon (before they took up their wage). As such, the only people who can't actually pay would be the poor and homeless. But, how can we do anything about this class of people when we aren't making sure that there are practical ways of keeping systematic track of them, to make sure they have a roof over their heads. Sure, they have food stamps (which isn't enough), but where do they sleep at night? America isn't even doing enough to give this class of people the basic amenities. Which will indirectly lead to them needing more care, seeing that they're constantly in adverse conditions that may warrant the need for care to begin with. They are, by the very definition, at risk. We have created a problem that can only be solved with people in the community getting involved - not government. There isn't enough tax dollars in America to fix a broken populus. People need to get involved, not government.

I don't say these things to be rude, but to make a point. Your solution is not scalable, and is only addressing a symptom of a systematic problem involving people. And no amount of tax dollars will fix it. Even if America took full advantage of the fiat nature of modern USD and went wild with 100% taxation (full paycheck going to government). Besides, do you really trust them with your money?

And to address your last point, that won't work as you stated:
 

Quote

 We can increase tax in brackets as we've done and get more out of our money at the same time. 

No - that will make people spend less, which stifles the rest of the private economy. That's a fast track to an even worse recession if you increase them as much as you suggest.

• http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/classes/econ101/herriges/Lectures10/Chapter 7H- Taxes.pdf

This is why I usually suggest that people take multiple Economics courses (not just one or two). Because the assumptions made by neo-classical economics alone are incomplete. Your tax bracket ideas require an environment where at least one resource has no physical limit/boundary and is subject to limited value fluctuation - the money supply (USD).

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoclassical_economics#Criticisms
• https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/120515/infinite-economic-growth-finite-planet-possible.asp

Consumer demand is not unyielding. It will respond in kind to an increase in taxation, and cause an unintended surplus in other major fields, while also driving down the value of the American dollar, making international trade in a global economy more difficult for the American people (especially exporters). I don't have the time to address everything that will be impacted, but what you suggest is an incomplete solution at best.