Although support for Medicare-for-all is growing, the proposal also receives plenty of criticism. "The arguments we've found that resonate are that it would give the government too much control over the health-care system, that people would have to give up their current insurance plans, and that it would increase taxes," Levitt says.
When Sanders first introduced his bill, he argued that most Americans would find any tax hikes
offset by savings on household health-care costs. In other words, what you would save by not forking over premiums, co-pays when you go to the doctor or deductibles when you visit the emergency room would outweigh any additional amount you pay in taxes. That point is central to the debate over the viability of universal health care.
"The average of what people would pay when you take into account taxes, premiums and out-of-pocket costs would go down," says Levitt. "Generally, lower-income people would end up paying less for health care. But higher-income people would pay a whole lot more. It depends a lot on which taxes end up getting increased in order to pay for the new plan."
Critics argue that the financial burden on the federal government would be staggering. A much-discussed report released last month by the
Mercatus Center at George Mason University suggested that Sanders' proposal would lead to a
$32.6 trillion increase in federal spending over a 10-year period. The
Urban Institute came up with a similar estimate in 2016.
