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.

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.

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.

Implementing a universal healthcare system would require massive government spending, increasing the national debt and potentially leading to higher taxes. The U.S. cannot afford such a costly program. A 2022 study by the Mercatus Center estimated the cost at $32.6 trillion over 10 years.

Under M4A, the influx of new patients into the healthcare system could overwhelm providers, resulting in longer wait times for appointments, surgeries, and procedures. Countries with universal healthcare, like Canada, have experienced issues with wait times for some procedures.

Doctors and specialists might lose the financial incentive to provide high-quality care if their earnings are capped under a government-run system. This could result in lower motivation, decreased innovation, and a drop in the quality of care and innovation in the healthcare sector.