Addressing arguments against Medicare for All

Now to address arguments issued against a single payer healthcare system. To start we will look at the argument that medicare for all is too expensive as it will cost 37.8 trillion dollars over the next 10 years. 

This argument fails to take into account the projections of spending of the current system over the next 10 years, it is estimated that we will be spending  42.9 trillion dollars over the next 10 years as under the current system a lot of taxpayer money goes to excess administrative costs when it comes to billing, claims submission, claims reconciliation, and payment processing. This means that in actuality a single payer health care system would save 5 trillion dollars by cutting down waste in administrative costs. 

Another argument often presented by advocates against a single payer system is the argument that the United States population of 332 million is too big to have a single-payer healthcare system. This argument can be debunked if we look at the nations that comprise the European Union. 

To join the European Union, it states in its constitution that each member nation must provide a government healthcare system whether that be a single payer system or a national healthcare system they must provide it. The combined population of all the nations in the EU amounts to 446 million people. Now if you apply this to the United States as in The United States requires all 50 states to provide and help administrate a federal Single Payer Healthcare system then that size argument is debunked. 

Especially when considering the fact that the U.S. is the richest country in the world and would have more than sufficient means to pay for this system especially if we instituted a progressive income tax and increased the capital gains effective tax rate on the top 1%.