A 2009 study estimated that lack of health insurance was linked to 45,000 deaths annually in the U.S. A more recent study, published in the respected medical journal The Lancet in 2020, found that Medicare for All could prevent about 68,000 unnecessary deaths per year—staggering figures for the wealthiest nation in the world.

Opponents of Medicare for All argue that a government-run healthcare system could lead to inefficiencies, mismanagement, and lower quality of care, ultimately increasing mortality rates. However, the success of programs like traditional Medicare and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare system contradicts this pessimistic view. Additionally, evidence from other countries with universal healthcare systems disproves this claim, as these nations achieve better health outcomes while spending about half as much per capita.

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.