A majority of Medicare enrollees now say that the federal health insurance program should remain primarily for people age 65 and older, according to eHealth's report, "Medicare Beneficiaries on 'Medicare for All.'"
eHealth surveyed more than 1,000 individuals who purchased Medicare insurance plans through its online platform, and found that support among beneficiaries is down for Medicare for All. Just over a third (37 percent) of the respondents say that all Americans should have access to Medicare or Medicare-like coverage, compared to 41 percent in 2019 and 31 percent in 2018.
Related: Latest study pegs Medicare for All savings at $450 billion annually
In fact, the opposition is growing: 58 percent of Medicare beneficiaries now say Medicare should remain primarily for people age 65 and older, up from 42 percent in each of the prior two years.
Perhaps not surprisingly, support for "Medicare for all" is varied among beneficiaries of different income levels. The proposal is most appealing to highest-income earners: 47 percent of those with annual incomes of $100,000 or more support Medicare for All, followed by 42 percent for those with incomes less than $25,000 per year. For middle-class beneficiaries with incomes between $75,000 and $100,000, just 33 percent support expanding the federal program (the survey results do not detail the support level among people with incomes between $25,000 and $75,000).
"We have been tracking consumer sentiment on Medicare for All proposals for some time now but the results of our most recent survey surprised us," says eHealth CEO Scott Flanders. "As we get deeper into election season and Medicare beneficiaries listen to candidates and weigh the pros and cons of various proposals, it seems that support for a radical revamp of the Medicare program, and for Medicare for All candidates, is dropping."
Support for Medicare for All candidates is decreasing among Medicare beneficiaries: 32 percent of respondents now say they would support a Medicare for All presidential candidate (at this point, just Sen. Bernie Sanders), down from 35 percent in 2019. Opposition is rising: 43 percent now say they would not a support a Medicare for All candidate, compared to 36 percent in last year's survey, while 25 percent told pollsters that they are still undecided on whether they would support a Medicare for All candidate, compared to 29 percent in 2019.
Broken down by gender, 48 percent of men and 38 percent of women now say they would not support a Medicare for All candidate for president, up from 44 percent of men and 31 percent of women in 2019.
Of all of the respondents, 52 percent say they consider it very or somewhat unlikely that a Medicare for All program would be implemented even if a Medicare for All candidate would be elected president. Just 26 percent of respondents consider it very or somewhat likely the program would be successfully implemented, compared to 31 percent in 2019.
However, when broken down by age, the youngest Medicare beneficiaries are more likely than older ones to consider Medicare for All possible: 38 percent of respondents younger than age 65 consider it very or somewhat likely that a Medicare for All program would be successfully implemented if a candidate supporting it were elected, compared to 19 percent of those age 80 and older (the survey results do not detail the sentiment of respondents between the ages of 65 and 79).
Katie Kuehner-Hebert is a freelance writer based in Running Springs, Calif. She has more than three decades of journalism experience, with particular expertise in employee benefits and other human resource topics.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllEMT Qualifies as 'Health Care Provider' Under Whistleblower Act, State Appellate Court Rules
4 minute read'Battle of the Experts': Bridgeport Jury Awards Defense Verdict to Stamford Hospital
3 minute readJudge Awards Over $350K in Attorney Fees in Data Breach Class Action Settlement
3 minute readFalse Claims Act Causation Standard Continues to Divide Federal Courts
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1SEC Sued for Failing to Reveal Records Involving Simpson Thacher Attorney
- 2Lawsuit accuses University of California of racial discrimination in admissions
- 3Data Breaches in UK Legal Sector Surge, According to ICO Data
- 4PayPal Faces New Round of Claims; This Time Alleging Its 'Honey' Browser Extension Cheated Consumers
- 5Fired NLRB Member Seeks Reinstatement, Challenges President's Removal Power
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250