According to CNBC, 70% of Americans support Medicare for all, but the term is still murky for Americans. What does it actually mean and how could it affect Americans?

Implemented in its most historical meaning, Medicare-for-all would completely wipe out private coverage and replace it with a single-payer health insurance – a national government-run program that would cover every American. Under such a plan, deductibles, premiums, and co-payments would likely be things of the past. The government would deal directly with drug makers, which would lower prescription costs and streamline the administration process. Reuters defines it as “a publicly financed, privately delivered system with all Americans enrolled and all medically necessary services covered.”

How Much Would it Cost?

A study recently released by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University found that Sen. Bernie Sanders’ plan for universal healthcare, which is the highest-profile plan for Medicare-for-all, would increase government healthcare spending by $32.6 trillion during its first 10 years.

What Opponents Say

Supporters of Medicare-for-all are typically quick to point to Canada, which has successfully implemented a single-payer system, though Canadian citizens pay more in taxes than American citizens. Opponents argue that even as taxes and federal costs for health care rise, expenses for individuals and companies would drop, potentially canceling each other out. They’re also likely to refer to the Mercatus study for a different reason: the report suggests that national health expenditures – which include all national health spending (i.e. state Medicaid programs and private employees), not just government spending – could decline by $2 trillion over the first 10 years of implementation, though the author of the study admits that this is an unreliable number because it depends on too many variables.

What Critics Say

In 2016, the Urban Institute, a nonprofit research organization, came up with roughly the same number as the Mercatus study: $32.6 trillion over a 10-year period. Assuming both studies are correct, this would create an overwhelming financial burden on the federal government, requiring unprecedented tax hikes. Critics are also quick to liken Medicare-for-all to Medicaid rather than Medicare, claiming that if America is forced into a one-size-fits-all government program, patients will likely face long lines and delays in treatment. Moreover, the Mercatus study found that virtually any savings accrued from a single-payer plan would vanish if doctors and hospitals, who would be paid at least 10% less, wouldn’t agree to accept lower fees for patients who are now privately insured.

Healthcare reform is complicated, and the associated costs of Medicare for all have proven to be a stumbling block. Though Sanders’ plan is the most popular among Medicare-for-all advocates, he has yet to release a financing plan, so the potential impact on Americans and the healthcare industry as a whole is still uncertain.

Daniel Kittell, CPA - Accountant Indianapolis