“Medicare for All” would put Washington in much the same position. As costs mounted, officials would inevitably face pressure to limit spending. The long waits in Britain and Canada show one way that pressure can affect patients. Canada’s rapid embrace of assisted death offers a more disturbing warning.
“Medicare for All” is enjoying a political resurgence. A KFF poll released last week found that two-thirds of Americans support a national health plan — the highest level since the organization began asking about the idea in 2017.
But enthusiasm falls when Americans confront some of the trade-offs. Just 24% still support “Medicare for All” when told it could mean delays in medical tests and treatments, and 35% do so when told it could raise taxes.
Putting Washington in charge of everyone’s healthcare would not make it free. It would leave government officials to decide how to stretch finite taxpayer dollars across virtually unlimited demand.
Waiting is one way government-controlled healthcare systems make the numbers add up.
At the end of March, about 6 million people in England were waiting for treatment through the National Health Service. In more than 94,000 cases, patients had already been waiting longer than a year.
Canadians waited a median of 28.6 weeks from referral by a general practitioner to treatment by a specialist in 2025. And, contrary to Sen. Bernie Sanders’s (I-VT) statements, “Medicare for All” is not free. The average Canadian family of four paid $21,115 in hidden taxes to sit on a waiting list.
Canada offers another, darker warning about the incentives government-run healthcare can create. Medical assistance in dying has become remarkably common north of the border.
In 2024, 5.1% of people who died in Canada received MAID — roughly 1 in 20. The program now extends to some people whose conditions are not terminal.
Nothing contained in this blog is to be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of the Pacific Research Institute or as an attempt to thwart or aid the passage of any legislation.
Medicare for All comes with a human cost voters don’t realize
Sally C. Pipes
“Medicare for All” would put Washington in much the same position. As costs mounted, officials would inevitably face pressure to limit spending. The long waits in Britain and Canada show one way that pressure can affect patients. Canada’s rapid embrace of assisted death offers a more disturbing warning.
“Medicare for All” is enjoying a political resurgence. A KFF poll released last week found that two-thirds of Americans support a national health plan — the highest level since the organization began asking about the idea in 2017.
But enthusiasm falls when Americans confront some of the trade-offs. Just 24% still support “Medicare for All” when told it could mean delays in medical tests and treatments, and 35% do so when told it could raise taxes.
Putting Washington in charge of everyone’s healthcare would not make it free. It would leave government officials to decide how to stretch finite taxpayer dollars across virtually unlimited demand.
Waiting is one way government-controlled healthcare systems make the numbers add up.
At the end of March, about 6 million people in England were waiting for treatment through the National Health Service. In more than 94,000 cases, patients had already been waiting longer than a year.
Canadians waited a median of 28.6 weeks from referral by a general practitioner to treatment by a specialist in 2025. And, contrary to Sen. Bernie Sanders’s (I-VT) statements, “Medicare for All” is not free. The average Canadian family of four paid $21,115 in hidden taxes to sit on a waiting list.
Canada offers another, darker warning about the incentives government-run healthcare can create. Medical assistance in dying has become remarkably common north of the border.
In 2024, 5.1% of people who died in Canada received MAID — roughly 1 in 20. The program now extends to some people whose conditions are not terminal.
Read the entire op-ed here.
Nothing contained in this blog is to be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of the Pacific Research Institute or as an attempt to thwart or aid the passage of any legislation.