Sanders Wants Medicare at 55 After the Midterms. The Facts Tell a Harder Story

Fresh off Democrats' midterm victories, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont is pressing the incoming Congress to move fast on government health care. In a YouTube video last Thursday, Sanders urged lawmakers to lower the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 55 as an "immediate first step" toward universal coverage, Newsweek reported ^[2].

He also called for adding dental, vision and hearing benefits to Medicare and guaranteeing coverage for every child from birth through age 19, and he argued all of it could pass with a simple 51-vote Senate majority through budget reconciliation ^[2]. Sanders renewed his push for full Medicare for All, which he said 66 percent of Americans support, and declared that "Healthcare must be considered as a human right, not a privilege," according to Reason ^[1]. His Medicare for All Act, introduced in April 2025, has never received a floor vote ^[2].

Caring for the sick is a moral duty, and the current system needs repair. The question is whether handing Washington more of health care would deliver more care, or longer lines and larger bills.

The Price Tag Is Staggering

The best-known estimates land in roughly the same place. Charles Blahous of the Mercatus Center estimated that an earlier Sanders bill would add at least $32.6 trillion in federal costs over its first ten years, while the Urban Institute projected about $34 trillion in new federal spending over a decade ^[3]. Blahous wrote that the two estimates are very close once differences in years and assumptions are accounted for ^[3].

Both estimates assume hospitals and doctors would accept payments at or near today's Medicare rates, savings Blahous argued are unlikely to materialize ^[3]. A newer figure from the House Budget Committee puts the deficit increase from Medicare for All at about $47.4 trillion from 2027 through 2036, and the committee projects that access to physicians would fall 44 percent for people who previously had employer coverage ^[2].

Then there is Medicare's own balance sheet. In June, the trustees projected that the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund, which pays for hospital stays, nursing facility care and hospice, will be insolvent in 2033 ^[4]. The trustees called for "timely and effective action" to address the program's finances ^[4]. Lowering the eligibility age by a decade would pile new enrollees onto a program already facing that deadline.

Europe and Canada Show the Trade-Off

Supporters often point abroad, but the waiting rooms there tell a different story. Britain's hospital waiting list rose to 7.4 million in August, and the National Health Service has not met its 18-week treatment target in more than a decade, Reason reported ^[1]. Nearly 40 percent of emergency patients there wait more than four hours ^[1]. From September 2024 through August 2025, 79,130 people were taken off British waiting lists because they died before being treated ^[1].

Citing OECD data for 2023, Reason noted that 42 percent of Americans waited at least a month to see a specialist, compared with 62 percent in Britain and 65 percent in France ^[1]. In Canada, the Fraser Institute's 2025 survey found a median wait of 28.6 weeks from a family doctor's referral to treatment, the second-longest in the survey's history and 208 percent longer than the 9.3 weeks recorded in 1993, Canadian HR Reporter reported ^[5]. Canadians needing orthopaedic surgery waited a median 48.6 weeks, and those needing neurosurgery waited 49.9 weeks ^[5].

Related Why Parents Are Saying No to Seattle's Legal Fight Against I-638

Who Is Pushing Back

Republicans on the House Budget Committee oppose the plan over its spending, and GOP lawmakers argue that Americans satisfied with their current coverage should not be forced into a government program, Newsweek reported ^[2]. President Trump vowed before the election to veto Democratic bills if the party won Congress, though he has also signaled openness to deals, and Sanders said he is not certain Trump would reject a lower Medicare age ^[2].

Democrats are not united either. House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries and Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer have neither endorsed Medicare for All nor sponsored the bill, and the party remains divided over replacing private insurance with a single government plan ^[2].

Conservatives have offered a different path that puts patients, not bureaucracies, in charge. President Trump's Great Healthcare Plan, unveiled in January, would send federal subsidy dollars directly to individuals, including into health savings accounts, AJMC reported ^[6]. It would require hospitals and insurers that accept Medicare or Medicaid to post their prices, make insurers disclose how premiums are spent and how often claims are denied, write the administration's most-favored-nation drug pricing deals into law and move more medicines over the counter ^[6]. Critics argued the drug pricing approach could hurt research, and experts said details were lacking ^[6].

What Comes Next

Democrats take control of both chambers in January, and reconciliation could let them pass select health measures with a simple majority, though Trump's veto power limits what can become law ^[2]. Voters deserve an honest accounting of the cost, the waits and the 2033 deadline before Washington adds millions more Americans to Medicare. Compassion is measured by whether patients actually get care, and London and Toronto show that a government card in the wallet is not the same as a doctor in the room.