M4A would eliminate the phenomenon of "job lock," where people stay in jobs they dislike solely for health benefits. By decoupling health insurance from employment, M4A would allow individuals the freedom to change jobs, start businesses, or pursue nontraditional career paths without worrying about losing healthcare coverage. This could foster innovation and entrepreneurship.

Opponents argue that employer-provided health insurance incentivizes productivity. However, research suggests that job satisfaction and intrinsic motivation are stronger drivers of productivity than benefits.

Medicare for All reduces the number of uninsured individuals who might otherwise forgo necessary treatments due to cost. This can lead to earlier diagnosis and treatment, saving lives that would be otherwise lost.

A 2009 study estimated that lack of health insurance was associated with 45,000 deaths annually in the U.S. A newer study published in the medical journal The Lancet in 2020 found that Medicare for all would prevent about 68,000 unnecessary deaths per year.

Opponents of M4A argue that a government-run healthcare system could lead to inefficiencies, mismanagement, and lower quality of care, ultimately resulting in higher mortality rates. However, evidence from other countries with universal healthcare systems doesn't support this claim. Notably, these countries spend about half as much per capita on healthcare as the U.S. and get better health outcomes.