Why Medicare for All Won’t Work

Every election cycle, some politicians propose making Medicare available to all Americans, promising a solution to the nation’s healthcare problems. But while it may sound appealing on the surface, there are many reasons why Medicare for All would be unworkable and could actually worsen the healthcare system.

Cost Shifting: The Hidden Problem

Imagine if a law required your business to provide products or services to customers aged 65 or older at cost, with no profit. To stay in business, you’d have to increase prices for younger customers to cover your losses. This is called cost-shifting, and it’s already happening in healthcare. Medicare dictates what it pays providers—often less than the actual cost of care—and providers compensate by charging private insurance plans more.

Insurance companies and third-party administrators use Medicare rates as a baseline for determining their Usual, Customary, and Reasonable (UCR) charges, typically allowing up to 50% more for those under 65. If everyone had Medicare, there would be no group left to absorb these extra costs. The government would control all pricing, and if prices were too low, many healthcare providers would be forced out of business. Fewer providers would lead to longer wait times, lower quality of care, and eventually higher costs as the system tries to stabilize.

The True Costs of Administration

Medicare isn’t free; someone has to pay for it. While some low-income individuals don’t pay premiums, others cover those costs through higher premiums and taxes. As costs rise, more income groups could be required to pay, making healthcare even more expensive.

Administrative costs are another factor. Insurance premiums cover claims, reinsurance, and operational costs, including administration, marketing, and a small profit margin. When the government steps in, an additional layer of bureaucracy increases costs due to redundant oversight designed to ensure taxpayer money is spent appropriately—although, if you’ve ever dealt with a slow claims process, you know this isn’t always effective. More oversight means longer processing times and increased overall costs.

The Law of Supply and Demand

Our population is aging, creating a higher demand for healthcare services while the number of taxpayers supporting these services shrinks. Older adults tend to need more care—like knee replacements or gallbladder surgery—driving up demand and, consequently, costs.

Take England’s healthcare system as an example: universal coverage is funded through high taxes, but the best providers often move to a private system where they can set their own rates. Public hospitals frequently have long lines and substandard services. Similarly, if Medicare for All were implemented in the U.S., those who could afford it would likely seek private care, leaving the rest to endure overcrowded public systems.

Personal Experience Speaks Volumes

Earlier this year, I experienced firsthand the delays in our current healthcare system when I had a gallbladder attack. After waiting 16 hours in an emergency room with no bed or even a chair, I chose to leave rather than endure the conditions. I suspect many in that ER were there for “free” care instead of paying a few hundred dollars for quicker treatment at an urgent care clinic.

A London taxi driver once told me he paid a high amount in combined taxes and private insurance premiums but found it worthwhile because of the better quality and faster access to private healthcare. This is the direction Medicare for All could push the U.S.: a two-tiered system where only those who can afford additional private insurance get timely, quality care.Can You Trust the Federal Government with Your Life?It may seem unfathomable today that the federal government could prioritize who lives and who dies based on race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or some other criteria that is important to a small Washington, DC think tank, but just a few years ago, it was equally unfathomable that our government, especially the military would put people in essential roles based on such criteria, with no regard to merit. Suppose one political party had absolute control of the White House and both houses of Congress and was inclined to favor only those who belong to a group in their camp. Is it far-fetched to think that politicians who support foreign wars at the expense of American lives and treasury for political gain wouldn't hesitate to put those of us who might be opposed to their regime in the back of the line for healthcare? Maybe this is farfetched, but we owe it to ourselves to consider this possibility. 

Conclusion: Medicare for All Would Hurt More Than Help

Medicare for All might sound good in theory, but in practice, it would mean more regulations, higher premiums, and longer waits for poorer quality care. Entrepreneurs and private providers will always find ways to meet demand when the price is right, creating competition that drives better quality and efficiency. But with Medicare for All, we’d be left with a system that fails to deliver the quality of care Americans expect, except for those who can afford to pay for both an overburdened public system and a separate private option.Darryl Breland