From your article:
"But here's the thing: Sanders' Medicare-for-all bill doesn't ban private health insurance. What it does ban is any private health coverage that duplicates the coverage offered by the government. For example, if Sanders Medicare-for-all system covered hospital stays but not dental work, then private insurers would still be free to offer plans that cover dental needs."
So, if it is offered by the government, you take what the government gives you, go find a country where you can get the care you want under the conditions you want, or go without.
This is very different from the vast majority of countries, which allow patients to procure premium or more timely care at their own expense.
"...The insurance part isn't too difficult to understand. People living in Britain can obtain private insurance, and about 10 percent of them do. About one-third of people with private insurance purchase it with their own money, while the rest receive it as a benefit of employment. Many of the big multinationals provide such insurance, either to all their employees or to senior executives. It's considered a plum perk for everyone, and most expats coming to work in the UK consider it an essential benefit.
Private insurance covers care provided outside the tax-funded NHS system. Sometimes, people use it to obtain items that the NHS has chosen not to cover, like medications or devices with low cost-effectiveness ratios (as I described in my previous blog on NICE). But that's unusual. Far more commonly, the insurance is used to purchase services that are freely available in the NHS, such as subspecialty consultation and elective surgery...
...The conflicts play out within the specialists' practices themselves. One London neurologist told me that he might see a patient in consultation for a neurological disorder and offer a follow-up appointment in several months, assuming there is no urgent clinical need. "But if the patient has private insurance, she can see me tomorrow if she'd like."