Viewpoint: We need Medicare for all

by Isabel Tamayo Chaidez | Special to the Courier

The price given to my teenage patient for a three-day hospitalization was $144,000. Their family, like many others in the U.S., had no insurance. Covering their family of four would cost nearly $1,500 a month, and they were just above the threshold to qualify for financial assistance. Neither option was affordable.

I have also worked with patients who had health insurance, but their insurance companies denied coverage for care they needed.

As a nurse, I have learned that having health insurance does not always mean having access to healthcare. The system fails patients on both sides: those without insurance often cannot afford care, while those with insurance can still be denied the care they need. Instead of helping patients when they need it the most, our healthcare system forces them to choose between their health and financial survival.

Congress can change this by advancing H.R. 3069, the Medicare for All Act of 2025. The bill would create national health insurance coverage for all U.S. residents, allowing patients to seek comprehensive care without paying monthly insurance premiums, deductibles, copayments, or coinsurance.

Access to health insurance currently depends on where someone works, how much they earn, or which plan they can afford. Losing or changing a job can mean losing coverage and having to leave providers who understand your history because your new insurance won't cover visits with them anymore. Even when insured, costs can extend beyond monthly premiums.

Imagine paying $300 each month for insurance, then avoiding care because you first need to meet a $1,200 deductible and pay a $60 copay at every visit. An accident then leaves you with an $8,000 emergency room bill. This is what "insured" can still look like in the U.S. Americans already pay for healthcare, but the current system isn't set up to encourage access.

The current system also puts healthcare providers in positions where they need to consider what insurance will approve when recommending treatment, even when better options exist. As a psychiatric nurse practitioner student, I know many of my future patients may be unable to access certain treatments because of insurance and cost barriers. As providers, we try our best to work within the system, but we should be able to freely recommend the treatments our patients need without fearing insurance will deny coverage.

A common argument against Medicare for all is that it would raise taxes, but this ignores how much we already pay for health insurance through premiums, deductibles, co-payments, taxes, and lost wages. The federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services reports the U.S. spent $5.3 trillion on healthcare in 2024, including $556.6 billion paid directly out of pocket.

A recent Yale-led analysis projects a national single-payer system could cover everyone, reduce annual health spending by $1 trillion, and save 114,000 lives annually.

Implementation would be complex, but H.R. 3069 includes a two-year transition, addresses wait times and access, and helps fund staffing in underserved areas. Medicare for all would change how we pay for care, but higher taxes would replace many current premiums and out-of-pocket costs.

We already pay for healthcare, but should we really continue paying more for less?

The family I met needed care, not a $144,000 warning about what happens without insurance. No family should have to choose between necessary treatment and financial survival. Help move H.R. 3069 forward. Visit rs.bot/UfnsBA or text SIGN PHLNWZ to 50409 to send your House representative a letter supporting the bill.

Isabel Tamayo Chaidez grew up in Claremont and graduated from Claremont High School. A registered nurse, she earned her BSN from Azusa Pacific University, studying to become a psychiatric nurse practitioner.

Distributed by Newsbank, inc.