Medicare for All is widely popular in the US. The insurance industry, hospitals, and employers who want leverage over workers buy off politicians to prevent it from happening.
Medicare for All is a proposed law (S.1129 and H.R.1384) that expands Medicare to be a comprehensive single-payer system for all Americans. It has fairly high bipartisan support in polls, but relatively few (and only Democrat) supporters in Congress.
Just my humble opinion, but it seems Medicare for all would only exacerbate the actual problem of medical costs being too high due to government subsidization. I'll take my down votes and go now...
HN's guidelines discourage commenting on downvotes; you may wish to remove the last sentence.
I will say that I recently had to deal with the medical system for a family member, and he was on decent private insurance. We actually would have received better care at a lower cost if he was on Medicare instead. N=1, of course.
I'm pretty sure that Medicare has been shown to be a more effective negotiator than the private insurers and generally operates more efficiently, but I may be misremembering.
Disclaimer that I don't support medicare for all myself, I'd much prefer a model closer to the NHS, with caveats (federal funding, county administration, state oversight).
