More than 26,000 people die each year in the U.S. from a lack of health insurance, and with many other wealthy countries offering “Medicare for All” to everyone, it begs the question, why don’t we? Medicare for All generally refers to the move to a “single payer healthcare system”, meaning a healthcare system in which the federal government acts as the sole provider for medical insurance, but doctors and hospitals still operate independently. The current system in the U.S. is that of a hybrid between a “multi-payer” system, where various entities insure people. and a “single payer” one. While federal insurance programs do exist, most notably Medicare, a federal insurance plan for people over the age of 65, and Medicaid, for Americans with limited income and resources, most people are insured through private insurers or through their employers. The most notable proponents of Medicare for All are Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Pramila Jayapal, each of whom has introduced bills to switch to a comprehensive, entirely taxpayer-funded single-payer system with absolutely no premiums or deductibles.
A problem that Medicare seeks to solve is that of overspending on healthcare in the U.S. compared to other countries. In 2023, we spent 17.6% percent of our GDP, or $14,570 per capita on healthcare. Meanwhile, nations like Canada, the UK, and France, which use a single-payer healthcare system, spend around half as much, and have higher life expectancy and lower infant mortality rates. Medicare for All seeks to solve this problem by lowering healthcare costs in the nation as a whole. The biggest cut in spending that Medicare for All would induce is administrative costs, as currently, insurance companies across the country negotiate with hospitals and doctors on benefits’ rates and rules. A single federal plan would make billing more streamlined, saving an estimated $600 billion a year. There is also an additional estimated $200 billion in savings in a single payer system’s ability to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies and lower the exorbitant prescription drug costs.
.
Most importantly, a single-payer healthcare system would benefit every American by giving all citizens access to more affordable healthcare. An estimated 26 million Americans, or 8 percent of the U.S. population, lacked health insurance in 2023. This has been especially highlighted during the COVID-19 pandemic, where 26% of COVID-19 deaths in the U.S. could have been prevented if the entire population were insured. Even more Americans are underinsured due to the high cost of premiums and deductibles, and one-fourth of Americans can’t afford the prescription drugs that their doctors provide. Rep. Jayapal, in a press conference on Medicare for All, stated, “It is a travesty when 85 million people are uninsured or underinsured and millions more are drowning in medical debt in the richest nation on Earth. We don’t suffer from scarcity in America; we suffer from greed.” A single payer healthcare system not only gives people access to healthcare without the hassle of deductibles and premiums, but as outlined by Sen. Sanders and Rep. Jayapal, would reduce spending. While opponents of the bill argue that switching to a single-payer healthcare system, and the subsequent increase in payroll taxes and other methods of funding, would be too costly to the American people, estimates show that the elimination of premiums and deductibles would still decrease individual healthcare costs.
As the wealthiest country in the world, it is baffling that we are unable to provide efficient, high-quality healthcare that other high-wealth nations are able to provide. A single payer system has already been implemented in countries like the UK, France, Germany, Spain, Australia, and many more, and is effective in cutting costs. While Medicare for All might seem like a radical change, federal programs already take up a lot of the current health insurance market, and at least the expansion of Medicare or Medicaid would be a step in the right direction.
