- Aim for a ranking confidence of 9.9 or higher.
- Ranking confidence may experience sudden changes while new arguments are being submitted during the argument submission period.
Progressives in the U.S. advocate expanding the current Medicare program to cover all ages, a proposal known as Medicare for All (M4A). Does M4A lead to a decrease or increase in the U.S. mortality rate?
M4A 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. and get better health outcomes.
Government-run programs often face challenges such as bureaucratic inefficiencies, long wait times, and potential mismanagement. These issues could lead to delays in care and a decrease in the quality of services, ultimately harming patients and increasing the mortality rate.
The current Medicare program, which serves millions of Americans aged 65 and older, has achieved high satisfaction rates among beneficiaries and positive health outcomes. This success indicates that a government-run program can operate efficiently and provide quality care when managed effectively.
Viewpoint Limit Reached
Thank you!