Four Arguments against Single Payer Healthcare Debunked

I review four arguments leveled against Medicare-for-All (MCA) and show that support for each is minimal. For the first argument, with supporting data, I challenge the prediction that many physicians will leave this profession and the number of students enrolling in medical schools will decline. The second argument is the wait time to see a physician will dramatically increase. Data comparing the wait time in the U.S. versus other countries with MCA systems do not support this claim. Also, the wait time to see a physician in Veterans Administration (VA) facilities (which are operated by the Federal government) is shorted than the wait time to see a physician in private practice. A third argument is that a MCA will result in lower quality healthcare. The most extensive study on the quality of healthcare among 11 first world countries involved synthesizing 72 indicators of healthcare and categorizing them in five domains. The U.S. ranked last on overall healthcare when the five domains were combined, ranked last in four of the five domains when examined separately, and ranked last in the most important domain—Health Care Outcomes. A disturbing finding is the U.S. ranked last in time a physician spends securing their patient’s needed medication or treatment because of insurance converge restrictions. The fourth argument is Americans like their private health insurance and are unlikely to have greater satisfaction with an MCA plan. When consumer satisfaction with private insurance is compared to consumer satisfaction with three government operated healthcare programs (Medicare, Medicaid, and VA), the government healthcare programs are preferred not only in the services they provide, but also in the cost to the consumer