Medicare for All aims to provide universal healthcare coverage, reducing the number of uninsured individuals who might otherwise forgo necessary treatments due to cost. This can lead to earlier diagnosis and treatment, potentially saving lives that might be lost under a system where access is dependent on insurance coverage.

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.

With M4A, there would be fewer insurance companies and administrative complexities, leading to significant cost savings. Streamlining the system could eliminate redundancy, simplify billing, and reduce waste, lowering the overall cost of healthcare. A 2020 study in The Lancet estimated that M4A could save over $450 billion annually in healthcare costs. Additionally, preventive care could reduce long-term costs associated with untreated conditions.

While Medicare for All (M4A) may result in increased use of healthcare services, particularly by those who were previously uninsured, the cost savings it provides are more than sufficient to cover this demand. It's important to note that individuals who were already insured through their employers do not absorb these savings. Previously, their employers covered the cost of health insurance, and now they pay a similar amount as healthcare taxes.