I would strongly argue against a universal healthcare system. Once you implement a universal healthcare system, you are married to the system. You would pay a much larger amount in taxes, and you would not decide where it goes. If the central planners did not believe it was most appropriate to use your resources for MRIs, you could not get an MRI. Their failures would be felt by everybody. Healthcare remains a prevalent concern in areas that have implemented universal healthcare; there are shortages, care is rationed, and they don't have access to the latest treatments. Doctors have gone on strike in Germany, and the NHS will have to house patients in hallways. However, the payers cannot do much about it; if it is unsatisfactory, they cannot vote with their wallets. They have to wait until the next Parliamentary election.
I would argue a market approach to healthcare would be the premier model for healthcare delivery. Insurance should be entirely divorced from the doctor's offices; if you are forced to use it, you should file it yourself. Instead, I argue an unpopular opinion: make healthcare an out-of-pocket expense. While there could be many models for payment, I would prefer a subscription service to a doctor's office as has been implemented elsewhere, out of pocket payments provide the customer with the power of the purse. If they do not like the prices, they will go elsewhere; the provider cannot hide the prices from the patient because the patient is the customer. The provider would be concerned solely with the needs of the patient and would be able to optimize their practice to ensure the best patient experience and outcome, while the patient would enjoy the benefits of lower prices from market competition. Innovation would be possible in way unimaginable today. In exceptional years, insurance can be used to help pay for the expenses. Healthcare is not different than any other issue we face. The same principles of free enterprise can lead to better outcomes for all parties.