Have a question for those who already have singer payer

First, this is not an argument against singer payer. I'm 100% for it and feel that insurance companies are death panels. However, a recent situation got me thinking. . .

I have torn my ACL in my left knee 3 times - once while playing tennis, the second and third ones because the doctors put them in wrong and they snapped from the pressure. I got a great sports guy to do a third replacement (technically 4th ACL) but his residents didn't want him to -- they said I should just have my knees replaced. I'm 51, granted, not in the best physical shape, but all I needed is the ACL for stability. I have NO knee pain but my gait is off and it's killing my ankle and back.

It is now 5 years later, yes I have advanced arthritis in both knees (the Ehlers-Danlos doens't help nor does my weight) but no real pain. Sometimes I'll take an Advil/Tylenol or if it's REALLY bad I'll have a steroid shot (once in the 5 years) but no other issues. Yes I know I'll need them replaced but I want to postpone it while I get in better shape and have other issues addressed.

So now thinking of single payer, would that ACL surgery (which was somewhat elective) have been paid for or would my only option have been a knee replacement?

My sister-in-law is in Canada (landed immigrant status for over 45 years) and needed her gallbladder removed. The only reason she had to wait a couple of weeks is because the doctor she wanted was on vacation. Had she been willing to do it that week, they were ready. She loves their system.

So, given my situation, which way may it have gone??

Thanks