No. A public option would preserve the current system in which employers and conservative state governments determine patients' healthcare coverage for them. A public option would simply provide an additional choice for these employers to make on behalf of working class and poor people, including plans with high-deductibles and co-payments. Under Medicare for All, employers and state governments would lose the ability to make insurance choices for us, as comprehensive coverage would be provided as a right for all residents regardless of their employment situation or the state they live in.

No. When asked about private health insurance, 70% of people are opposed to allowing employers to change or eliminate an employee’s health insurance against the employee’s wishes. Yet this is how private health insurance works, and Medicare for All would take health coverage out of the hands of employers - exactly as survey respondents prefer.

There are polls showing that support for Medicare for All falls to 46% when respondents are told it would diminish the role of private insurers, but rises to 55% when they learn that they can keep their preferred doctors and hospitals under Medicare for All. People's fears about "losing their private insurance" are largely based on a fear of losing their healthcare coverage or access to their preferred providers, not of moving from private healthcare determined by their employers to comprehensive public healthcare that cannot be taken away, which is what Medicare for All provides.

Medicare for All would dramatically improve Medicare for seniors. It would expand the program to include comprehensive long-term care coverage, including at-home services and supports, as well as nursing home care; this would be life-changing for tens of millions of seniors and their families, who would no longer be forced to become destitute to get the care they need.

The Medicare for All Acts in both the House and the Senate add hearing, dental and vision coverage, and eliminates every penny in premiums, co-pays and deductibles. If Medicare for All were the law of the land, healthcare costs would no longer consume over 40% of the average Social Security benefit.

Medicare for All would cost less than the current healthcare system - with or without a public option - according to every single economic analysis. By establishing healthcare as a publicly-funded right, it would eliminate most private spending on healthcare - like premiums and co-pays - and replace it with public spending. So while residents' would pay more in taxes for Medicare for All, their total spending on healthcare (including taxes, premiums, deductibles, and copayments) would be lower under Medicare for All than it would under a public option. Medicare for All is costs residents less than a public option even when expanding coverage to everyone and eliminating deductibles and co-payments, which a public option does not do.

How? Medicare for All eliminates the waste and profits taken out of the healthcare system by hospitals, drug companies, and doctors' offices, while a public option does not. Under Medicare for All, hospitals and other health facilities could be funded via global, lump-sum budgets—similar to the way cities pay fire departments—so they don't have to fight with private insurers over payment for every health service. That global budget payment strategy has cut administrative costs at hospitals in Canada and Scotland to half the US level.