Saturday, November 7, 2026

Midterm wave sets a course for ‘Medicare for All’ fight

Midterm wave sets a course for ‘Medicare for All’ fight

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2026/11/7/800124296/health/midterm-wave-sets-a-course-for-medicare-for-all-fight/ 

Midterm wave sets a course for ‘Medicare for All’ fight

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., second from right, speaks during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, April 10, 2019, to reintroduce his "Medicare for All" legislation to create a government-run health insurance plan. Sanders is flanked by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., left, and Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., right. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)
Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont speaks during a news conference on Medicare for All on April 10, 2019.AP

By Kate Wells for KFF Health News


Fifteen years working as an emergency room nurse has convinced Kim Bogan that the only way to fix the American healthcare system is to tear it down and start over.

Her patients arriving for triage are sicker than ever. They can’t afford many of the prescriptions they get in the ER. And sometimes when patients die, she wonders if she could have saved them had she not been caring for five or six other people at once.

That’s why she spent the past year shuttling between 12-hour shifts at this city’s Sparrow Hospital and campaigning for Abdul El-Sayed, the Democrat who made “Medicare for All” a signature issue in his congressional campaign and is now a senator-elect.

Michigan Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed speaks at an election night event, early Wednesday, Nov. 4, 2026, in Detroit, as his wife Sarah Jukaku watches. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson)
Democratic Sen.-elect Abdul El-Sayed of MichiganAP

But she realizes that just because progressive candidates successfully campaigned on some form of the policy in states such as Texas, Iowa, Maine, and Michigan, it doesn’t mean Medicare for All will be an easy sell.

“Nobody expected that,” Bogan said.

Medicare for All typically refers to a government health program that would guarantee Americans coverage by replacing most or all private insurance. Critics are already pointing out that, even in a blue wave as massive as the 2026 midterms, the most vocal Medicare for All champions generally won by smaller margins than more moderate Democrats.

“Whatever else people voted for in this midterm election—anger about inflation, anger about corruption, anger about the Iran war—they by and large didn’t vote to have the government take over health insurance,” said Jonathan Oberlander, a professor and healthcare reform expert at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill.

Still, supporters of universal healthcare see this moment as a once-in-a-generation opportunity because Americans are buckling under the weight of healthcare costs and are hungry for change. Several states, including Oregon, are already exploring what it would take to set up single-payer systems.

The affordability crisis “dominated this election, and Medicare for All speaks to that,” Oberlander said. Medicare for All supporters expect the policy agenda will gain major momentum heading into the 2028 Democratic presidential primaries, he added.

But more moderate Democrats may see the idea’s growing popularity as a threat to gains they made in states such as Iowa, Kansas, and South Carolina.

“If Democrats want to hold those seats, which were very difficult to win, they’re probably not interested in passing Medicare for All,” Oberlander said. “That’s a huge political risk in red-leaning states. So just because Democrats have a majority doesn’t mean it’s a majority for Medicare for All.”

Previous Medicare for All proposals would have required getting millions of people to willingly give up their existing coverage, fueling unprecedented opposition from the healthcare industry, said Michael Cannon, a healthcare economist at the libertarian Cato Institute and a Medicare for All opponent.

“If Medicare for All actually had the price levels that Bernie Sanders and Abdul El-Sayed envision, the industry would tear it to shreds,” he said.

And even as voters say they support Medicare for All in greater numbers than in nearly a decade, support falters when they’re presented with common arguments against it—like it could lead to higher taxes or delays in treatment—according to a recent KFF poll.

Jaime Bardenhagen said she feels a little guilty about the idea of getting her healthcare coverage from the government. A former nurse in rural Leelanau County in northern Michigan, Bardenhagen has Parkinson’s and sialidosis, a rare genetic disease that can cause seizures.

Yet she “feels bad” about qualifying for disability benefits next year. Such programs were something she “didn’t believe in” while growing up on a farm, she said. You were supposed to work for what you needed, she said, not rely on government support. “And I did work as hard as I could, for as long as I could.”

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz listens as President Donald Trump speaks in the Oval Office of the White House, Thursday, Oct. 16, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz listens as President Donald Trump speaks in the Oval Office on Oct. 16, 2025.AP

But like millions of Americans, Bardenhagen and her husband saw their health insurance costs skyrocket this year, after enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies expired.

Their monthly premiums went from $700 to $1,300, with a deductible of $7,500. They started putting off medical tests her doctor wanted, she said.

“We couldn’t afford that,” she said.

Her husband voted for President Donald Trump in 2016, Bardenhagen said. This time, he stayed home. Bardenhagen, a Democrat, also considered sitting out the midterms.

“I just don’t trust either party anymore,” she said.

Despite those misgivings, she says she supports Medicare for All. Her years as a nurse left her disillusioned with the current healthcare system, she said.

She felt the insurance companies, not doctors, were calling the shots, determining which prescriptions and procedures patients could receive. Wouldn’t it be fairer, she figured, if “good people” in government were making those calls? “So, absolutely, the government should take it over.”

That takeover is Cannon’s worst-case scenario. The libertarian economist said giving the federal government greater control over the healthcare system would only backfire. Patients would be left “in even more vulnerable positions, because they would be relying for their access to healthcare on government spending that is just not sustainable.”

Medicare for All supporters are naive to think the government could negotiate lower drug and healthcare prices by replacing private plans with a public one, he said.

“Everyone knows that the industry is going to end up running the show, and that has been the case since they passed Medicare,” Cannon said.

For Bardenhagen, the message she wants Democrats to take from the midterms is simple: “Do something,” the former nurse said.

“With the election results, both parties are going to be under pressure to come up with solutions to address the current affordability crisis in healthcare,” said Sara Collins, a senior scholar at the Commonwealth Fund, a private foundation that supports healthcare research.

That could mean smaller, but still significant, bipartisan deals that might have seemed unthinkable before the midterms: things such as reinstating the enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies that expired at the end of last year, or other measures with broad support, such as curbing insurance companies’ use of prior authorizations, which requires patients to get insurers’ approval before proceeding with a covered treatment.

Cartoon by Tim Campbell
Tim Campbell/Tribune Content Agency

“That’s probably the lowest-hanging fruit for them, I’d think,” said Patricia Votava, a political strategist based in Sullivan’s Island, South Carolina.

The pressure for healthcare reform is likely to grow, too, with Affordable Care Act premiums set to rise by double digits again next year; employers passing on more of their growing insurance premium costs to workers; and massive cuts to Medicaid looming, which are projected to leave 7.5 million more people uninsured by 2034.

On the whole, the midterm results could push Democrats’ healthcare agenda further left, Oberlander said. Some Democrats could support a public option, a government-backed health plan people could opt into. Others in the party could coalesce around a version of Medicare for All that doesn’t fully replace private insurance but serves as “guaranteed baseline government health insurance,” as El-Sayed described his current plan in the campaign.

“If you like your insurance from your employer or from your union, that can still be there for you,” he said.

Whatever they opt for, Democrats shouldn’t expect voters to be willing to wait patiently for years of gradual change, Oberlander said. “If the window opens, you better jump right through.”


South Carolina correspondent Lauren Sausser contributed to this report.

We'll get straight to the point: The financial hardships that Daily Kos is facing this year are tough.

We continue to be paywall-free. We continue to be supported by our readers, not billionaires or corporations. But we need to bring in more revenue. We are leaning on our community more than ever to help make ends meet. Can you donate $5 or more to support Daily Kos and our continued work?

$
OR
Donate with

Was this story worth reading?

Recommending and sharing stories helps us decide which stories are most important to show our readers.

14
Share:





Conversation

|

All comments are subject to our Community Guidelines. The views expressed in comments are those of the individual authors and don't necessarily reflect the views of Daily Kos.

All Comments

  1. Comment by bopamole.

    Saying folks in red states "don't want" universal healthcare is BS. "They" told us we could never win elections in red states like texas. It was not true. Dems should be charging ahead with a progressive agenda on all fronts, because people voted for that!

  2. Comment by tegrat.

    "the only way to fix the American healthcare system is to tear it down and start over"

    This is horrible framing. What Medicare for All really means is addressing the way we finance our healthcare system, that is, how we pay for our healthcare. And yes, when that is accomplished by moving to a single payer, which again, is what Medicare for All means, then there will be some inherent subsequent improvements that will naturally occur in the healthcare system in terms of how care is provided, but by and large that end of the system will remain the same, it is not being "torn down". What Medicare for All is tearing down is the irrational manner in which health care dollars are distributed to pay for care. The fundamental change here is the elimination of the multiple insurers whose only function is to slice and dice up the risk pool in whatever manner benefits them the most. They provide zero added benefit to the public. Medicare for All is a single payer with a single plan for universal coverage of our health care needs (including hearing, vision, dental, mental, and ideally long term care). It is the ideal way to pay for a public necessity.

  3. Comment by Whatsnuts.

    Essential workers should be able to afford the essentials of life.

  4. Comment by UKPrince46.

    Eliquis, which wife needs, costs $716 for a 3-month supply thru WellCare. We use to get it (a generic, which the US drug industry does not allow) from Canada for $149 for 3 month supply). Trump's regime discontinued that (as well as any drugs from ANY foreign countries) to further enrich the pharma executives... certainly not the laborers who ship it! I am watching the Democratic party (a life-long, donating, voting member) to see of they punt healthcare down the road and come up with half-ass or mediocre solutions for big pharma!!

  5. Comment by WarrenPease.

    When millionaires/billionaires start paying THEIR FAIR SHARE n taxes, M4A will be within reach to cover those lower on the economic scale!!! Health care should be a RIGHT!!!

    • Reply by Whatsnuts.

      Republicans don't even believe clean water is a right.

      Constitution Doesn't Cover Right to Clean Water, Court Rules (1)

      Sep 4, 2026The US Constitution doesn't provide a right to clean drinking water or accurate information from public officials, a divided federal appeals court ruled.

  6. Comment by Distracted Expansionist.

    Ending an entrenched industry won’t be easy. MediKids is also a good idea, the caveat on partial steps notwithstanding. I don’t see Metamucilini not vetoing everything.

  7. Comment by interdependence.

    The biggest obstacles to m4a in the next 4-6 years will be Schumer and Jeffries if they stay party leaders. Please contact your reps. There is DEFINITELY time to get (at least) Schumer replaced.

    https://act.indivisible.org/sign/tell-democrats-no-schumer-coronation/

  8. Comment by noofsh.

    The biggest surprise for me this election cycle was the number of candidates who ran on Medicare For All. I thought the idea was dead. It’s very much back.

  9. Comment by LI Mike.

    This:

    "The libertarian economist said giving the federal government greater control over the healthcare system would only backfire. Patients would be left “in even more vulnerable positions, because they would be relying for their access to healthcare on government spending that is just not sustainable.”

    Sounds pretty much exactly like the arguments against Medicare when it was passed in the 1960s.

  10. Comment by GrannyCT.

    Government spending would be sustainable if we didn't have the obscene tax rates for the rich and super rich. It makes no sense. And sure gives 'too rich to fail' a real meaning. I don't envy anyone having to negotiate the destruction of this "administration" AND the very real changes we need outside of those. Courage people!

    • Reply by CJVargas.

      Redirect some of that military spending and ALL of that ICE spending.

  11. Comment by Dalbert.

    Not sure what all the fuss is about. And anyone please correct me if I’m wrong but, I’m pretty sure Medicare for All is now polling above 60%.

    Not some form of vague universal health program, but literally Medicare for All.

    Seems like as good starting point as anywhere for a public option to become law.

    • Reply by Mercy Ormont.

      The key to passing MFA is to let it be an OPTION. Federal Medicare becomes MFA. Anyone can opt into it. But anyone who doesn't want to won't have to.

      Over time more and more people will migrate to it, IF it works well. If it doesn't, we'll have found that out. In that case, more and more people will abandon it.

      After a couple of decades, we'll either have a functioning system for most Americans (with a few private plans left standing), or it will have failed and can be cancelled and something else tried.

    • Reply by evolvingplanet.

      Realistic and cogent. And hopefully the way to get there.

  12. Comment by BlueStar99.

    This seems like a hit piece on MFA. The fact that there are CEOs and shareholders making piles of money off our health system is beyond absurd. El-Sayed is great at making that case.

    • Reply by GrannyCT.

      Beyond absurd says it all. Going bankrupt and losing everything you have is not going to poll well. People are begging for help. And instead we get ballrooms, arches and golf courses. And the poodles who let it happen.

    • Reply by CJVargas.

      My significant other's sister is now deeply in debt because she required cancer treatments and didn't want to die. The current system simply doesn't work. It's obscene that a country that harbors so much wealth chooses not to provide access to life-saving healthcare.

    • Reply by CJVargas.

      Oh yeah, and that's WITH insurance.

  13. Comment by dge.

    Private health care companies, as they exist now, need to be put out of business. The cruelty they have inflicted on this country is beyond belief..

Trending Conversations

 

No comments:

Post a Comment