Considering that the majority of countries operate under a single-payer healthcare system, it begs the question of why the United States has not yet implemented such a system. People have been struggling to breathe under the deep waters of U.S. healthcare, which marginalizes the poor and elevates the rich. It is a tangled web of private insurers prioritizing profits over patient care, leaving several Americans without proper coverage, forced to face the grasping claws of exorbitant medical bills. Healthcare under a single-payer system would remove the profit motive and has gained increasing popularity among Americans. As Senator Bernie Sanders stated while introducing the Medicare for All Act of 2023 bill, "healthcare must be recognized as a right, not a privilege." Once the 'luxury' of healthcare is no longer a barrier, everyone can have access to healthcare as an essential service. Despite the advantages of a single-payer healthcare system, implementing it has several challenges. A more equitable and openly accessible healthcare system in the United States, however, may be attainable given the recent renewal of the ideals of Medicare for All.

The goal of Medicare for All has always been to increase access to healthcare in the United States, potentially saving countless lives. The cost of healthcare is one of the most significant issues confronting U.S. households, according to a Gallup Poll. This financial concern has also led 64% of Americans to delay or avoid seeking medical care. It's clear that Americans are struggling under the cost of healthcare. Refusing to receive treatment due to cost can also worsen conditions, threatening individuals' lives. Medicare for All's elimination of healthcare costs for consumers could enable this 64% of the U.S. population to receive unobstructed care. A 2020 study by Wharton University predicted that Medicare for All would improve population health by 2060, increase life expectancy by two years, and grow the population by 3%. Considering the extent to which receiving treatment can improve population health, it is crucial that all people, no matter their social class, receive care, which will cause more people to seek treatment and thus allow for more potential health problems to be found and resolved quickly. Additionally, universal coverage could lessen the gap between social classes, promoting equality. For instance, a joint study by Harvard Medical School and Cambridge Health Alliance found a 40% higher mortality rate for uninsured individuals compared to insured individuals. By reducing this mortality rate and regulating it through universal coverage, we could reduce the implicit gap between those in poverty and those who are not. Implementing the Medicare For All Act would enforce an individual's right to healthcare, ensuring their right to life and happiness.

The government's role as the sole buyer of healthcare could drastically lower administrative costs. A single-payer system like Medicare for All would result in significant net savings over time, making it the only feasible option to control healthcare spending in the U.S. These savings could help offset the costs of universal healthcare coverage and ultimately result in a more sustainable healthcare system. In the long run, administering Medicare for All could become very cost-effective. The complexity of the American healthcare system contributes to high administrative costs that insurance companies spend on negotiations, claims review, marketing, and sometimes shareholder returns. With one public plan negotiating rates with healthcare providers, billing becomes simple, and we could eliminate three-quarters of the estimated $812 billion the U.S. now spends on healthcare administration. Not only could this simplify the healthcare system for patients navigating complex insurance plans and billing processes, but it also creates a streamlined healthcare system that removes billing costs and insurance companies, saving a large amount of expenditures. It's even predicted that a national health insurance program could save approximately $150 billion on paperwork alone. With Medicare For All, a unified system could deliver prompt, thorough, affordable healthcare by employing effective management techniques and straying from the high administrative costs of private insurance. These estimates hold true when compared to real-life cases of other nations: one study found that in 2012, the U.S. spent 80% more on insurance-related costs than in a "simplified financing system" like Canada's single-payer model. Physicians and hospitals in the U.S. spend much more than their counterparts elsewhere on administrative activities, and insurance premiums reflect these high costs, carrying on a never-ending cycle of increased expenses. The impact of implementing Medicare for All is clear: it would save administrative costs and streamline healthcare services, making healthcare accessible to everyone in America with high-quality healthcare coverage.

Simplifying the healthcare payment system can result in better negotiations with doctors, hospitals, and drug companies. According to ACP Journals, the United States spends about 200% more per capita on prescription drugs than peer countries. The lack of a centralized government body that negotiates drug prices or determines which drugs government programs will cover enables pharmaceutical companies to raise prices without justification. However, under Medicare For All, the government may negotiate with drug companies, lowering prescription drug prices. Moreover, as the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics indicates, Canada's ability to suppress drug prices due to its monopsony power has led to pharmaceutical goods being 54 percent cheaper than in the United States. Comparing the U.S. to other peer countries demonstrates that single-payer healthcare will significantly reduce the costs of pharmaceutical goods, allowing for mediated drug prices and more accessible goods for less affluent individuals. Simplifying the healthcare payment system via centralized negotiations can lead to substantial cost savings and better consumer prices under Medicare For All.

Meanwhile, opponents of a centralized system argue that it would result in long waits and overbearing government control. They claim that more people will seek non-priority healthcare, leading to extremely long service delays. However, urgent care continues to have virtually no wait time in universally insured nations. For non-priority procedures (such as cataract removal), some countries may have elective procedure wait times, but this is no different from the U.S.'s current situation. In place of medical urgency dictating our care prioritization, we use patients' ability to pay as the determining factor, which is arguably worse. Furthermore, critics argue that the government would dictate how physicians practice medicine since physicians in nations with federal health insurance systems are rarely questioned about their procedures (usually only in cases of expected fraud). Compare it to the U.S., where physicians frequently need insurance companies' permission to perform operations, write prescriptions, or order specific patient tests. Decreasing this amount of control has potential benefits in streamlining healthcare decision-making and reducing administrative burdens. In a single-payer system, doctors would not have to seek permission from insurance companies before making certain decisions, increasing efficiency and allowing doctors to focus on providing high-quality patient care. Of course, although many restraints would be lifted, governments would still mandate some control in a single-payer system. Despite the potential drawbacks, there are ways to work around it that may be more beneficial than the current U.S. healthcare system.

There is no question that healthcare is a basic human need, but the debate is still raging about whether a single-payer system is the solution to our country's healthcare problems. Despite the potential concerns, it should still be considered. Medicare for All in the United States can drastically improve the accessibility and affordability of healthcare services for all Americans. Government mediation will substantially reduce administrative costs, as negotiations will for drug, doctor, and hospital prices. Hence, we will see substantial cost savings for individuals and the government while also providing universal access to high-quality healthcare. Many other foreseeable benefits exist, such as lessening the gap between social classes. Simply put, everyone should have the right to the health services they need, when and where they need them. Prioritizing this principle allows for the application of a system that reflects this ideal, creating a happier, healthier society that encloses individuals in a warm embrace, regardless of income or background. We must continue to fight for the Medicare for All bill to ensure everyone has access to the care they require. It is critical that we certify that healthcare is not a privilege for only a select few, but rather a right guaranteed to all.

This article was edited by Grace Hur.