Latest News

Medicare for All Would Cost $60 Trillion over Next Decade

One socialist dream could become more of a nightmare, according to researchers and scholars from the Mercatus Center.

Despite “Medicare for All” being touted by both presidential candidates like Bernie Sanders and Democratic senators and representatives, the idea may not be all it is cracked up to be from a financial standpoint.

There are many flaws in the idea of Medicare for All, these are usually pushed to the side in favor of simply offering this coverage as part of a political campaign – but not actually clarifying how the bills would be paid. This discrepancy is becoming increasingly obvious, thanks to new testimony from Charles Blahous from the Mercatus Center.

Blahous testified before Congress this week, speaking to the House Rules Committee on the idea of Medicare for All. This is the first formal congressional hearing on this idea and it did not go well for progressives.

Despite Bernie Sanders’ claims that Medicare for All would save the government money, Blauhous stated that a $32 trillion dollar price tag is in addition to – not a replacement for – current federal spending. This is almost double what Sanders and others have projected.

The hearing was called to discuss formal Medicare for All legislation, this law was posed by Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) and Debbie Dingell (D-MA). While the original cost cited was $32 trillion in total, the actual price tag would be far higher; according to Blahous, the original figure was wildly optimistic and not realistic.

The true cost of Medicare for All legislation would be between 54.6 trillion and 60.7 trillion, almost double the proposed and often cited cost. According to Blahous, even doubling both individual and corporate income taxes would not make up for the shortfall.

Almost half of Democrats feel that Medicare for all is a top priority, but only 14 percent of Republicans agree. The division along party lines comes in part because of unrealistic ideas of the cost and the overwhelming tax burden this legislation would place on both businesses and indivliduals who work for a living.

Most Americans, regardless of party lines, oppose Medicare for all. If this program was to eliminate private health insurance, 58% of Americans would reject it. If the proposed plan would require individuals to pay more in taxes, 60% of Americans would oppose it; a whopping 70% would oppose a plan that would lead to treatment and diagnostic delays (which virtually all single payer programs end up doing).

The lack of reality and understanding of the true cost of Medicare for All begins with those proposing the legislation, but runs throughout the party as well. As prominent politicians like Bernie Sanders continue to tout the idea but fail to mention the true costs or potential loss of coverage, fewer and fewer voters realize what they are truly being asked to vote on – and risk a significant loss in health care quality along with an increased tax burden.

~ Patriotic Freedom Fighter

Most Popular

These content links are provided by Both and the web site upon which the links are displayed may receive compensation when readers click on these links. Some of the content you are redirected to may be sponsored content. View our privacy policy here.

To learn how you can use to drive visitors to your content or add this service to your site, please contact us at [email protected].

Family-Friendly Content

Website owners select the type of content that appears in our units. However, if you would like to ensure that always displays family-friendly content on this device, regardless of what site you are on, check the option below. Learn More

Most Popular
Sponsor Content

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *