There is growing support for “Medicare for All” as a “solution” to the U.S. healthcare crisis. This concept was born in 2003 when Rep. John Conyers first introduced the earliest bill explicitly named and structured as Medicare for All. Does this option move the needle in addressing the current healthcare crisis in the U.S.? Let’s take a look.
The History of “Medicare for All”
The National Health Care Act was the first introduction of the concept “Medicare for All.” The idea traces back much further: to the original architects of Medicare in 1965, who quietly hoped it would eventually expand to everyone. The bill proposed a universal single‑payer system modeled on Medicare. This is the moment “Medicare for All” became a defined policy option in Congress.
The idea moved from the progressive fringe to the national stage when:
- 2017 — Bernie Sanders introduced a Senate version that had 16 co-sponsors.
- 2019 — There was a major surge in political attention. Multiple Democratic presidential candidates endorsed “Medicare for All,” and public polling showed majority support.
Since then, Democratic candidates have pushed for this solution, while most Republican candidates have pushed back, though support among Republicans is growing.
How Does This Address the Healthcare Crisis in the U.S.?
While the concept of “Medicare for All” sounds great, does this address the overall healthcare crisis in the U.S.? In a word, no, it does not. The U.S. healthcare crisis is driven by collapsing affordability, workforce shortages, corporate consolidation, payment instability, and political interference. While providing access to Medicare for all may solve some problems, there are still some very serious issues it does not address:
- Affordability Collapse & Rising Medical Debt -35% of Americans can no longer afford health insurance, and this is projected to rise to 40% in 2026. Medical bills are now the leading cause of personal bankruptcy, accounting for 66.5% of filings. Patient collections have fallen to 47.8%, meaning nearly half of medical bills go unpaid — destabilizing hospitals and clinics.
- Workforce Shortages & Immigration Bottlenecks -The U.S. faces a worsening physician shortage, especially in rural and underserved areas. Immigration barriers prevent foreign‑trained physicians from filling gaps. This results in longer wait times, reduced access, clinician burnout, and closures of essential services.
- Corporate Consolidation & Private Equity Takeovers – Private equity acquisitions of medical practices and hospitals drive dramatic price increases without improving care. This results in higher costs, reduced competition, and care decisions increasingly shaped by investor demands rather than patient needs.
- Payment Instability & Medicare Reimbursement Cuts – Medicare and Medicaid payments have declined by 33% over 20 years, while costs for staff, supplies, and rent continue to rise. A 2.83% cut in the 2025 physician fee schedule further strained practices.
- Systemic Economic Instability – The U.S. remains the most expensive healthcare system in the world, with poorer outcomes than other industrialized nations. Nearly half the population may soon be unable to pay for care — a scenario economists warn could lead to system‑wide collapse.
- Rising Costs Outpacing Revenue for Providers – Health spending nearly doubled from $2.5 trillion (2009) to $4.9 trillion (2023). Inflation and new expensive technologies (e.g., GLP‑1 drugs) increase expenses faster than reimbursement rates.
What Would It Solve?
“Medicare for All” directly addresses some of the biggest failures in the U.S. healthcare system: lack of universal coverage, unaffordable care, high out‑of‑pocket costs, administrative waste, gaps in benefits, and the inability to negotiate drug prices:
- Lack of Universal Coverage – “Medicare for All” would automatically cover all U.S. residents, eliminating the uninsured and underinsured. This would require automatic enrollment at birth or residency.
- High Out‑of‑Pocket Costs (Deductibles, Copays, Coinsurance) – The bills prohibit cost‑sharing for nearly all services. While my initial reaction was that this would create a bigger affordability crisis, the cost-sharing effectively hides the true cost of the service. Deductibles, copays, and coinsurance don’t reduce the actual cost of care. They shift the burden onto families. Cost‑sharing is a symptom of unaffordability, not a solution to it.
- Fragmentation of Insurance Plans – “Medicare for All” replaces the patchwork of private insurance, Medicaid, ACA exchanges, and employer plans with one national program. Private insurers may only offer supplemental coverage. Administrative waste, confusion, billing complexity, and inconsistent benefits could be addressed to a large extent.
- Gaps in Benefits – Current Medicare excludes dental, vision, and hearing; private plans vary widely; long‑term care is unaffordable.
- Prescription Drug Prices – The program requires federal negotiation of drug prices and creation of a national formulary. The U.S. pays the highest drug prices in the world; fragmented purchasing weakens bargaining power.
- Administrative Waste & Billing Complexity – The U.S. spends far more on administrative costs than any other nation.
As you can see, there are compelling reasons to consider “Medicare for All.” While it does not address all the issues, it provides considerably more stability on cost and service fronts than we see today.
One Major Concern
The government will run this program. Looking at some of the issues with the Veterans Administration (VA) and Social Security, you have to question whether the U.S. government can manage this and realize the cost-benefits of the proposed solution. I am reminded of Milton Friedman’s comment about the federal government:
“If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years there’d be a shortage of sand.”
The VA is one of the largest healthcare and benefits systems in the world — and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has repeatedly placed major parts of it on the High‑Risk List, meaning they are vulnerable to fraud, waste, abuse, or mismanagement. There are several persistent issues:
- Healthcare Delivery Challenges
- Acquisition & Supply Chain Problems
- Disability Benefits System Challenges
- Leadership & Management Weaknesses
- Cybersecurity & Data Protection Risks
Social Security faces well‑documented challenges from GAO, SSA’s Inspector General, and independent analysts. These include:
- Customer Service Backlogs
- Outdated Technology
- Disability Determination Problems
- Financial Sustainability Concerns
- Workforce & Budget Constraints
These problems do not prove that government programs cannot work. They show that scale, complexity, underinvestment, and outdated systems create vulnerabilities. The VA and SSA serve tens of millions of people. When leadership is inconsistent, modernization is slow, or Congress underfunds operations, the cracks become visible. These risks would also apply to a “Medicare for All” solution.
The Catholic View
The Catholic Church does not take an official position on “Medicare for All” as a specific policy. But the Church does teach—strongly and consistently—that universal access to healthcare is a human right, and any policy that achieves that goal is morally acceptable. Catholic social teaching holds that healthcare is not a privilege for the wealthy but a right rooted in human dignity.
Jesus spoke with unmistakable clarity about the sick, the poor, and the moral obligations of a community. Everywhere Jesus went, He healed:
- Without asking who “deserved” it.
- Without payment.
- Without conditions.
- Without screening.
Matthew 25:35-36 states:
“For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty, and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.”
Jesus teaches us we have a moral responsibility to take care of each other. The current system in place leaves too many gaps for people to fall through the cracks. Access to healthcare is deeply fragmented and exorbitantly expensive. Is “Medicare for All” the beginning of the answer? It could be, but there are some big hills to climb to implement and manage the risks. Unfortunately, this is being dismissed without a proper analysis of its viability. I recommend that the President create a bipartisan Task Force to examine the issue end-to-end and evaluate potential solutions, such as “Medicare for All” and other programs that would address the many problems with healthcare in the U.S.
Please share your thoughts about this article in the “Comments” section.
Peace
If you like this article, you might enjoy:
Terror: The Impact of Policies on Security Threats
The Death of Lazarus
Culture: Should Immigrants Be Forced to Assimilate?
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In