August 30, 2018

When Bernie Sanders (I-VT) introduced “Medicare for All,” two starkly different voices emerged on the issue.

The Council Perspective: One voice has questioned how Medicare for All will be funded, and noted that the proposed system would actually restrict options, limit access, stifle inflation and increase costs. The other has argued that a one-size-fits-all, government-controlled health care system would solve issues like rising healthcare costs and access to appropriate, timely care. However, both sides agree that too many families struggle with rising premiums, too many individuals struggle to get the care they need when they need it, and too many treatments are often out of reach.

This year, healthcare ranked as the number one issue candidates are highlighting in their campaigns. While Medicare for All may seem like a partisan debate, most moderate Democratic candidates are attempting to rally support by advocating for the improvement of the ACA, emphasizing that the most effective solution would be to fix the current healthcare system to avoid interrupting coverage for millions of Americans. So far, this tactic has worked for Democrats in Texas, Indiana and Maryland. Although more than half of Americans support some type of national health plan, according to Kaiser, there is less agreement on what a ‘government-funded healthcare system’ looks like, which has eroded support among Americans.

Click here for our federal and state single-payer legislation trackers, and other related materials.


Related Materials:

The Council’s State and Federal Legislation Trackers

The Future of Health Care: Where Does the Bipartisan Path Lead?
Bipartisan Policy Center

Seventy Percent of Americans Support ‘Medicare for all’ in New Poll
The Hill

Why ‘Medicare for all’ is Playing Poorly in Democratic Primaries