The Medicare Maze: A Daughter’s Journey Through a Broken Promise and the Battle for America’s Health

Introduction: The Promise and the Panic—My Mother’s Medicare Maze

The postcard arrived in a deluge of official-looking envelopes, glossy brochures, and urgent-sounding letters.

It was from the government, a simple, bureaucratic notice that my mother’s Initial Enrollment Period for Medicare was beginning.

For decades, this moment had been a fixed point on the horizon, the promised reward for a lifetime of work.

Medicare was supposed to be the payoff—the security of knowing that in her retirement, her health would be protected.

The reality, I soon discovered, was not security, but chaos.

As an analyst who has spent a career deconstructing complex systems, I believed I was uniquely equipped to help her navigate this transition.

I was wrong.

We sat at her kitchen table, buried under a mountain of paper.

There were plans called Part A, Part B, Part C, Part d+. There were Medigap plans with their own alphabet soup of letters: F, G, N.

Private insurance companies, names we recognized from television commercials, promised zero-dollar premiums, free gym memberships, and dental coverage.

Friends and neighbors offered well-meaning but contradictory advice.

One swore by her “all-in-one” private plan, another warned that those same plans were traps that would deny her care when she needed it most.

The process was not empowering; it was paralyzing.

Each choice seemed to carry immense weight, a wrong turn threatening to lock her into a plan that could fail her at her most vulnerable.

The system felt designed to confuse, to overwhelm.

We encountered a fundamental and terrifying uncertainty that millions of Americans face: you simply never know what things are going to cost.¹

The transition from the relative simplicity of her employer-sponsored insurance into the bewildering Medicare ecosystem was a challenge we were unprepared for.²

My mother, a capable and intelligent woman, felt excluded from the decisions about her own health, a common frustration for beneficiaries who feel their voices are not heard.¹

This personal struggle revealed a professional paradox.

How could a program so foundational to the American social contract, a program designed to provide peace of mind, have become a source of such profound anxiety and confusion? The mailings, the commercials, the political soundbites—they all spoke of “Medicare,” but they were clearly not all talking about the same thing.

This was not a single, coherent system.

It was a battleground.

The Epiphany: It’s Not One System, It’s a Four-Front War

My analytical training eventually kicked in, cutting through the fog of frustration.

The epiphany came not as a single flash, but as a slow, dawning realization at that kitchen table.

The “debate on Medicare” is not one debate.

It is a messy, overlapping, and deeply ideological conflict being fought on four different fronts simultaneously.

We are not arguing about one program; we are fighting over four different, and often mutually exclusive, versions of what Medicare is and what it should be.

To understand the whole, you must first deconstruct the parts.

This report is the result of that deconstruction.

It is an investigation into what I call the “Four Medicares,” the competing frameworks that define the entire political and personal struggle over American healthcare for seniors.

1. Medicare the Legacy: This is the original 1965 promise—a government-run social insurance program that provides a defined set of hospital and medical benefits. It is the bedrock of the system, but its foundation is cracking under the immense pressure of a looming financial crisis. Its story is one of a noble promise facing a fiscal cliff.
2. Medicare the Marketplace: This is the newer, privatized version of Medicare, embodied by the explosive growth of Medicare Advantage. It champions consumer choice, competition, and extra benefits, and is rapidly supplanting the original program. It reframes healthcare from a social good into a consumer product, and its story is one of convenience, hidden costs, and corporate power.
3. Medicare the Unfinished: This is the Medicare of stark omissions—the essential health services it simply does not cover. It is defined by the catastrophic financial gaps for dental, vision, and, most devastatingly, long-term care. Its story is one of a promise only partially kept, leaving millions to face financial ruin for predictable life events.
4. Medicare the Idea: This is the aspirational vision of “Medicare for All.” It seeks to take the original 1965 principle of social insurance to its ultimate conclusion, creating a universal, single-payer system for every American. It is the most transformative and contentious front in this war, forcing a debate about the very soul of American healthcare.

To comprehend the furious debate over Medicare’s future, one must navigate this maze.

This report will explore each of these four fronts in turn, using the narrator’s journey as a guide to dissect the data, the politics, and the powerful human stories that will determine the future of America’s health.

Part I: Medicare the Legacy – The Cracks in the Foundation

Before one can understand the fierce battles over privatization and expansion, one must first understand the original promise.

“Medicare the Legacy” is the program as it was conceived—a landmark achievement of social insurance designed to protect the elderly from the crushing costs of healthcare.

Yet, this legacy is now threatened by demographic shifts and political inertia, creating a solvency crisis that looms over every aspect of the debate.

Section 1.1: From Great Society to Fiscal Cliff: A Promise Under Strain

On July 30, 1965, President Lyndon B.

Johnson, with former President Harry S.

Truman at his side, signed the Social Security Amendments of 1965 into law, creating Medicare and Medicaid.³

It was the culmination of a political struggle that had spanned decades, with the first congressional hearings on government health insurance dating back to 1916.⁵

The need was acute.

Before Medicare, only about half of Americans over 65 had any hospital insurance, and far fewer had coverage for doctor’s visits.

For this group, income plummeted in old age just as health costs soared, creating a major gap in the nation’s social safety Net.⁴

Medicare was designed to fill that gap, providing near-universal health coverage to the elderly, regardless of their income or health status.⁶

The original program, now often called “Original Medicare,” consisted of two parts.

Part A, the Hospital Insurance (HI) program, covered inpatient hospital stays and related care.

Part B, the Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) program, covered physician services and other outpatient care.³

From its inception, serving 19 million people in its first year, the program evolved.⁸

In 1972, eligibility was extended to include people under 65 with long-term disabilities and those with end-stage renal disease (ESRD).³

The most significant structural change came with the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, which created the optional Part D prescription drug benefit and rebranded private plan options as “Medicare Advantage”.³

This history of adaptation demonstrates a program that has grown to meet new needs.

However, the core of the legacy program—the fee-for-service system of Parts A and B funded primarily by payroll taxes and beneficiary premiums—remains the foundation upon which the entire, sprawling Medicare edifice is built.

It is this foundation that is now facing an existential threat.

Section 1.2: The Solvency Crisis Deconstructed: A Ticking Clock

The most urgent and unavoidable front in the Medicare debate is the financial health of its trust funds.

The Medicare Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund, which finances Part A, is on a collision course with insolvency.

While projections vary slightly from year to year, the consensus from official sources is stark and consistent: the fund will be unable to pay its bills in full within the next decade.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Medicare Trustees have projected the insolvency date to be as early as 2033 or 2036.⁹

In some analyses, the date has been even sooner, with one Urban Institute report citing a 2027 depletion date.¹¹

It is crucial to understand what “insolvency” means.

It does not mean the program shuts down or that checks stop going out entirely.

The HI trust fund is continuously replenished by payroll taxes.

Insolvency means the moment when the fund’s reserves are depleted, and ongoing revenues are no longer sufficient to cover 100% of promised payments to hospitals and other providers.

At that point, under current law, payments would be automatically cut to match incoming revenue.

This would result in an immediate, across-the-board reduction in payments to providers, estimated to be around 11%.⁹

Such a cut would send shockwaves through the healthcare system, potentially threatening the financial viability of hospitals and limiting access to care for beneficiaries.

The drivers of this crisis are twofold and have been understood for decades: the relentless growth in U.S. healthcare costs and the demographic reality of an aging population.

More beneficiaries are drawing from the system while a smaller share of workers is paying into it.

This has created a fundamental and growing disconnect between spending, which is projected to continue rising as a share of the economy, and revenue.¹²

The CBO’s long-term budget outlook consistently identifies spending on major health care programs, particularly Medicare, as a primary driver of rising federal debt over the next 30 years.¹⁴

The looming insolvency is not for a lack of solutions.

The problem is that every potential fix is politically toxic because it requires a powerful constituency to bear a significant cost.

The CBO and other fiscal watchdogs have repeatedly published a comprehensive menu of policy options that could ensure the program’s solvency for decades to come.¹⁰

These options fall into three broad categories: increasing revenue, reducing spending on providers, or increasing costs for beneficiaries.

For example, on the revenue side, a modest 0.1 percentage point increase to the 2.9% HI payroll tax could close roughly one-fifth of the long-term funding gap.¹⁰

On the spending side, significant savings could be achieved by reforming payments to Medicare Advantage plans, which are currently costing the government substantially more than traditional Medicare.

Reducing MA benchmarks by 10% could close over half of the HI shortfall.¹⁰

Other options include reducing payments to hospitals for bad debt or graduate medical education.¹⁰

On the beneficiary side, options include increasing premiums or modernizing cost-sharing structures.¹⁰

The existence of this detailed roadmap of solutions reveals the true nature of the solvency debate.

It is not a technical problem in search of an answer; it is a political problem in search of will.

The continuous cycle of warnings about an impending “crisis” is less about an unsolvable mathematical equation and more about a political stalemate over who should pay to fix it.

The debate is not about how to secure Medicare’s future, but about which group—taxpayers, seniors, or the healthcare industry—will absorb the financial pain.

This transforms the issue from a dry, budgetary exercise into a raw political and ideological conflict.

Section 1.3: Navigating the Labyrinth: The Beneficiary Experience

For the 67 million Americans enrolled in Medicare, the high-level debate about solvency is often overshadowed by the immediate, personal challenge of navigating the program’s bewildering complexity.¹⁸

The legacy program is not a single, integrated insurance plan.

It is a fragmented system that requires beneficiaries to assemble their coverage piece by piece, like a complicated and expensive puzzle.

A beneficiary in Original Medicare starts with Part A (for hospitals) and Part B (for doctors).

To get prescription drug coverage, they must then choose and enroll in a separate, private Part D plan.⁷

Because Parts A and B include significant cost-sharing and, crucially, no annual limit on out-of-pocket spending, most beneficiaries also purchase a private Medicare Supplement Insurance plan, known as Medigap, to cover these costs.¹⁹

This means a single individual often deals with four different entities—the federal government for Parts A and B, a private insurer for Part D, and another private insurer for Medigap—each with its own premiums, rules, and paperwork.

The financial exposure in Original Medicare without supplemental coverage can be substantial.

In 2025, the Part A deductible for a single hospital stay was over $1,600, and beneficiaries faced daily copayments for long stays.²⁰

Part B requires a 20% coinsurance for most services, with no upper limit.²⁰

This lack of an out-of-pocket cap is a major source of financial risk and anxiety for seniors, leaving them potentially exposed to catastrophic costs in the event of a serious illness.¹⁹

This structural complexity has a real human toll.

It is the source of the confusion and panic that my mother and I experienced at her kitchen table.

It fuels a system where beneficiaries feel overwhelmed and ill-equipped to make decisions, particularly during times of stress or illness when their capacity is at its lowest.¹

The fragmentation and lack of clarity lead to deep-seated anxieties about unpredictable costs and the fear of making a mistake that could have devastating financial and health consequences.¹

The legacy of Medicare, born from a desire to provide security, has itself become a source of insecurity for the very people it was designed to protect.

Part II: Medicare the Marketplace – The Rise of the Advantage Empire

While the legacy program grapples with its structural challenges, a new and profoundly different version of Medicare has risen to dominate the landscape.

“Medicare the Marketplace,” embodied by the private plans of Medicare Advantage (MA), has transformed the program from a standardized social insurance system into a consumer-driven market.

Its rapid growth is fueled by an alluring promise of simplicity and extra benefits, but it is also at the center of a fierce debate over costs, quality, and the future of Medicare itself.

Section 2.1: The Siren Song of Zero-Dollar Premiums and Extra Benefits

The growth of Medicare Advantage has been nothing short of explosive.

In 2025, more than half (54%) of all eligible Medicare beneficiaries—over 34 million people—are enrolled in an MA plan.¹⁸

This represents a dramatic shift from 2007, when only 19% of beneficiaries were in MA plans.²⁴

The Congressional Budget Office projects this trend will only accelerate, with MA enrollment expected to reach 64% of the Medicare population by 2034.¹⁸

The reasons for this mass migration are clear and are central to the MA value proposition.

Unlike Original Medicare, which requires beneficiaries to assemble multiple plans, MA offers an all-in-one package.

These private plans, typically structured as HMOs or PPOs, are required to cover all the same services as Medicare Parts A and B and usually include Part D prescription drug coverage as well.⁷

This bundling simplifies the experience for consumers.

The financial incentives are even more compelling.

In 2025, more than three-quarters (76%) of enrollees in the most common type of MA plan paid no additional monthly premium beyond their standard Medicare Part B premium.²⁶

Furthermore, MA plans offer a host of supplemental benefits that Original Medicare does not cover, such as routine dental, vision, and hearing services, as well as gym memberships.⁷

Perhaps most importantly for beneficiaries, federal regulations require all MA plans to have an annual cap on out-of-pocket spending for services covered under Parts A and B, providing a level of financial protection that Original Medicare lacks on its own.¹⁹

The insurance industry, represented by its primary lobbying group AHIP (America’s Health Insurance Plans), champions Medicare Advantage as a resounding success story.

They frame it as a thriving public-private partnership that leverages free-market competition to deliver better services, better access, and better value to seniors.²⁸

AHIP argues that MA plans save beneficiaries an average of over $2,400 per year compared to Original Medicare and lead to better health outcomes through improved preventive care and care coordination.²⁹

From this perspective, MA is not just an alternative to the legacy program; it is a superior evolution of it.

The following table provides a head-to-head comparison of the two main pathways a Medicare beneficiary can choose, illustrating the fundamental trade-offs at the heart of this decision.

Table 1: Traditional Medicare vs. Medicare Advantage: A Head-to-Head Comparison

Feature	Traditional Medicare (+ Medigap & Part D)	Medicare Advantage (HMO/PPO)
Premiums	Part B premium + Part D premium + Medigap premium.	Often $0 monthly premium beyond the standard Part B premium.26
Deductibles & Cost-Sharing	Separate deductibles for Part A and Part B; 20% coinsurance for most Part B services.20 Medigap plans cover most of these costs.	Plans have their own copayments and coinsurance, which vary by service and plan.
Out-of-Pocket Limit	None. Beneficiaries have unlimited financial exposure without a Medigap policy.19	Yes. All plans have a mandatory annual out-of-pocket maximum for Part A and B services.19
Provider Choice	Freedom to see any doctor or visit any hospital in the U.S. that accepts Medicare. No referrals needed for specialists.25	Must use doctors, hospitals, and specialists within the plan’s network. May need referrals to see specialists.25
Prescription Drug Coverage	Requires purchasing a separate, standalone Part D plan.7	Usually included in the plan (MA-PD).7
Dental, Vision, Hearing	Not covered, except in very limited circumstances.31	Most plans offer some level of coverage for these services as a supplemental benefit.7
Prior Authorization	Generally not required for services.19	Almost universally required for many services, including hospital stays, skilled nursing care, and expensive drugs.19

This side-by-side comparison makes the core trade-off explicit.

The legacy path of Original Medicare offers unparalleled freedom of choice but comes with significant complexity and, without supplemental insurance, unlimited financial risk.

The marketplace path of Medicare Advantage offers simplicity, a predictable budget, and extra benefits, but at the cost of restricted choice and subjecting care decisions to the approval of a private insurance company.

Section 2.2: The Hidden Costs of Convenience: Upcoding, Denials, and Networks

The attractive features of Medicare Advantage plans are not without controversy.

Critics, including government watchdogs and patient advocates, point to a series of hidden costs and systemic problems that challenge the narrative of MA’s superior efficiency and value.

The central criticism is that, despite the lower out-of-pocket costs for many beneficiaries, the MA program costs the federal government—and by extension, taxpayers—significantly more than providing care through the legacy program.

The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), an independent agency that advises Congress, has estimated that Medicare pays MA plans 20% more per person than it would have spent on the same beneficiaries in traditional Medicare.

This overpayment amounted to an estimated $84 billion in 2025 alone.²³

These excess payments are the direct result of the system’s payment methodology and are driven by two key phenomena:

1. Higher Coding Intensity (“Upcoding”): The government pays MA plans a set amount per enrollee, but this amount is adjusted based on the health status of the plan’s members. This “risk adjustment” system creates a powerful financial incentive for plans to diagnose as many conditions as possible, making their enrollees appear sicker on paper to justify higher payments from Medicare. This practice, often called “upcoding,” is a primary driver of the excess payments.¹⁰
2. Favorable Selection: Research suggests that, on average, the seniors who enroll in MA plans are healthier than those who remain in traditional Medicare. People with complex health needs may be less willing to accept the network restrictions and prior authorization hurdles common in MA plans. This “favorable selection” means that MA plans are often being paid a risk-adjusted rate for a population that is, in reality, less costly to care for than the data suggests.³³

These overpayments are what enable MA plans to fund the zero-dollar premiums and supplemental benefits that make them so attractive to consumers.

This dynamic creates a fundamental philosophical schism in the Medicare program.

The original concept of social insurance was built on the idea of a single, large risk pool where the healthy subsidize the sick.

In the new marketplace model, a different kind of cross-subsidy has emerged.

The traditional Medicare program and the general taxpayer are effectively subsidizing the supplemental benefits and lower premiums of the private MA plans.

This is not a level playing field; it is a system that funnels public money to private insurers, enabling them to offer a more appealing product that steadily erodes the enrollment base of the legacy program.

This represents a systemic transition from a social insurance model to a consumer-driven marketplace, a shift that benefits private insurers but raises profound questions about equity, long-term federal spending, and the quality of care for the sickest and most vulnerable beneficiaries.

Beyond the fiscal concerns, the tools MA plans use to manage care and control costs often become significant barriers for patients.

The two most prominent are:

• Prior Authorization: Nearly every MA enrollee (99%) is in a plan that requires prior authorization for some services, a requirement that is virtually nonexistent in Original Medicare.¹⁹ Plans routinely require pre-approval for expensive services like skilled nursing facility stays, Part B drugs, and inpatient hospitalizations.¹⁹ While insurers argue this prevents unnecessary care, patient advocates and providers contend it often leads to dangerous delays and denials of medically necessary treatment. Data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is telling: an internal analysis revealed that MA plans overturn 80% of their own denied claims upon appeal, suggesting the vast majority of initial denials were inappropriate. Compounding the problem, less than 4% of denials are ever appealed, meaning a huge number of beneficiaries may simply give up and not get the care they need.³⁴
• Limited Provider Networks: Unlike the freedom to see any willing provider in Original Medicare, MA plans restrict enrollees to a network of doctors and hospitals.²⁵ This can be a major impediment to care, especially for patients in rural areas with few in-network options or for those needing highly specialized treatment from experts who may not be part of their plan’s network.³³

The Center for Medicare Advocacy (CMA), a leading patient advocacy group, has documented the human cost of these practices through numerous case studies.

Their files are filled with stories of patients facing repeated coverage denials, re-hospitalizations caused by prior authorization problems at skilled nursing facilities, and situations where the MA plan, not the treating doctor, ultimately determines the course of treatment.³⁵

These stories paint a starkly different picture from the industry’s marketing materials, revealing a system where the “advantage” for some comes at a significant cost to others.

Section 2.3: The War of the Lobbies: Stakeholders Draw Their Battle Lines

The high-stakes debate over the future of Medicare, particularly the role of Medicare Advantage, is fought not just in the court of public opinion but in the halls of Congress, fueled by some of the most powerful lobbying forces in Washington, d+.C.

Each major stakeholder group has a clear, vested interest in the outcome, and their positions define the political battle lines.

• The Insurers (AHIP): As the primary beneficiaries of the MA marketplace, the insurance industry is its fiercest defender. AHIP consistently frames MA as a model of efficiency and consumer satisfaction. Their core argument is that any reduction in government payments to MA plans constitutes a “cut” to Medicare that will directly harm seniors by leading to higher premiums and reduced benefits.³⁶ They vigorously oppose any legislative efforts to rein in upcoding or otherwise reduce MA payments, portraying such moves as a broken promise to the 34 million Americans who have chosen these plans.³⁶
• The Doctors (American Medical Association – AMA): The AMA’s advocacy is laser-focused on what it views as a critical and unsustainable problem: the Medicare physician payment system. They argue that when adjusted for inflation, Medicare payments to physicians have been effectively cut by 33% between 2001 and 2025.³⁸ This growing gap between the cost of practicing medicine and what Medicare pays, they contend, threatens the viability of physician practices, especially in rural and underserved areas, and ultimately jeopardizes patient access to care.³⁸ The AMA advocates for an annual payment update tied to inflation and reforms to the burdensome administrative requirements of programs like the Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS).³⁸ While their fight is not exclusively about MA, the payment rates and administrative hurdles set by both traditional Medicare and private MA plans are central to their members’ financial stability.
• The Hospitals (American Hospital Association – AHA): Hospitals find themselves in a precarious and often contradictory position. On one hand, they are deeply wary of any move toward a more government-run system. They consistently point out that traditional Medicare reimburses them at a rate below their actual costs—paying only 87 cents for every dollar of care provided to a Medicare patient in one analysis.⁴¹ This leads them to oppose proposals like a public option or “Medicare for All,” which they fear would expand these inadequate payment rates and result in massive financial cuts to hospitals.⁴² On the other hand, hospitals also face immense pressure from the large private insurers that dominate the MA market. They must contend with these plans’ negotiating power, prior authorization demands, and payment policies. The AHA’s ultimate goal is ensuring the financial stability of its member hospitals, which often puts them at odds with both the government and private insurers.
• The Seniors’ Lobby (AARP): AARP is arguably the most complex and influential player in the Medicare ecosystem. As a non-profit advocacy organization with over 35 million members, its stated mission is to protect and strengthen the earned benefits of older Americans.⁴⁴ It consistently fights against any proposals that would cut benefits or force seniors to pay more. However, AARP also operates a for-profit subsidiary that markets a variety of financial products to its members, including the most popular Medigap supplemental insurance plans, which are sold in partnership with a private insurer.⁴⁶ This dual role as both advocate and market participant sometimes leads to nuanced positions. For instance, AARP has historically supported reducing the excess government subsidies paid to Medicare Advantage plans, arguing that the savings could be used to strengthen the traditional Medicare program for everyone, such as by helping to close the Part D prescription drug “donut hole”.⁴⁷

These powerful groups—insurers, doctors, hospitals, and the largest seniors’ organization—are locked in a perpetual struggle to shape Medicare policy to their advantage.

Their competing interests ensure that any proposed reform, no matter how sensible from a policy perspective, will face fierce opposition from at least one corner of this entrenched and well-funded ecosystem.

Part III: Medicare the Unfinished – The Gaps That Devour a Lifetime of Savings

Beyond the battles over solvency and privatization lies a third, quieter, but no less consequential front: the fight over what Medicare fails to cover.

“Medicare the Unfinished” is the story of the program’s significant benefit gaps, which reflect the healthcare norms of 1965, not the needs of the 21st century.

These omissions, particularly for routine dental, vision, and long-term care, leave millions of seniors exposed to staggering costs and can have devastating consequences for both their health and their financial security.

Section 3.1: The Agony of the Mouth and Eyes: A Costly Oversight

One of the most glaring gaps in Medicare coverage is its exclusion of most routine care for teeth, eyes, and ears.

The original 1965 law specifically excluded coverage for routine dental services, eye exams for prescription glasses, and hearing aids.³¹

While Medicare does cover some procedures under specific medical circumstances—such as an eye exam for a person with diabetes or dental work necessary for a heart valve replacement—it does not cover the routine preventive and maintenance care that is essential for healthy aging.³¹

This is not merely an inconvenience; it is a major driver of out-of-pocket spending and a significant barrier to care.

The financial burden on beneficiaries can be immense.

An analysis of 2018 data shows that among Medicare beneficiaries who used these services, average annual out-of-pocket spending was $874 for dental care and $230 for vision care.²⁷

These averages, however, mask the catastrophic costs faced by those with significant needs.

The top 10% of dental service users spent $2,136 or more out of pocket, while the top 10% of hearing aid users spent $3,600 or more.²⁷

The consequences are predictable: many seniors simply cannot afford the care they need.

In one survey, 12% of Medicare beneficiaries reported being unable to get needed dental care, with the vast majority citing cost as the reason.²⁷

This has profound health implications.

Poor oral health is not an isolated issue; it is linked to a host of other serious medical conditions, including heart disease, diabetes, and respiratory infections.⁵⁰

Similarly, untreated vision and hearing problems can lead to social isolation, depression, and an increased risk of falls and cognitive decline.⁵⁰

The following table uses 2018 data to quantify the real-world impact of these coverage gaps, revealing a story of significant financial hardship that directly translates into millions of seniors forgoing necessary medical attention.

Table 2: The Financial Burden of Medicare’s Gaps (2018 Data)

Service	Average Annual Out-of-Pocket Spending (for users)	Top 10% Out-of-Pocket Spending (for users)	% of Beneficiaries Forgoing Care Due to Cost
Dental Care	$874	$2,136 or more	12%
Vision Care	$230	N/A	6%
Hearing Care	$914	$3,600 or more	3%
Source: KFF Analysis of Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey 27

The data in this table paints a stark picture.

These are not minor, ancillary services; they are essential components of health and well-being.

The failure of Medicare to cover them creates a two-tiered system where access to basic care is determined not by medical need, but by the ability to pay out of pocket or the choice to enroll in a private Medicare Advantage plan that offers limited coverage.

Section 3.2: The Long-Term Care Catastrophe

If the dental and vision gaps are a chronic problem, the lack of coverage for long-term care (LTC) is a full-blown catastrophe.

This is, without question, the single largest and most financially devastating hole in the entire Medicare safety Net.³¹

Medicare explicitly does not pay for the services that millions of aging Americans will eventually need, such as extended stays in a nursing home, care in an assisted living facility, or custodial help with daily activities at home (like bathing, dressing, and eating).⁴⁹

The costs of this care are astronomical and far beyond the reach of most American families.

According to one survey, the average cost of a private room in a nursing home can exceed $100,000 per year.⁵⁰

Faced with these expenses, millions of seniors are left with a brutal choice: either rely on unpaid care from family members, who often must sacrifice their own careers and well-being, or spend down their entire life’s savings until they are poor enough to qualify for Medicaid.¹

Medicaid, the government’s health insurance program for the poor, has become the de facto LTC insurer in the United States, but it is a safety net of last resort, not a proactive solution.

The private market has utterly failed to fill this gap.

Despite decades of attempts, private long-term care insurance remains a niche product, covering only a tiny fraction of the population.⁵¹

The policies are often prohibitively expensive, have complex eligibility requirements, and may not provide adequate coverage when care is finally needed.

The failure of the U.S. to address the long-term care financing crisis represents a profound societal and political choice.

The original Medicare law was a product of its time, reflecting the insurance norms of 1965, which treated acute medical events differently from the chronic needs of aging.⁴⁹

While medicine and demography have changed dramatically since then, U.S. policy has not kept pace.

This stands in stark contrast to other developed nations that have recognized long-term care as a collective, insurable risk.

The American system, by default, continues to treat it as an individual or family responsibility.

This deep-seated philosophical divide explains the resistance to expanding Medicare to cover these services.

Proposals to add a comprehensive LTC benefit are not just about tweaking the program; they are about fundamentally redefining the social contract with the elderly and disabled.

They force a national conversation that the U.S. has long avoided: is the process of growing old and needing help with daily life a private misfortune to be borne by individuals, or is it a predictable societal risk that should be managed through the broad shoulders of social insurance? The unfinished nature of Medicare leaves this question painfully unanswered.

Section 3.3: A Lesson from Abroad: Germany’s Universal Long-Term Care Insurance

To understand that the American approach to long-term care is a choice, not an inevitability, one need only look to Germany.

In 1995, facing similar demographic pressures of an aging population, Germany implemented a bold and comprehensive solution: a mandatory, universal public long-term care insurance (LTCI) system.⁵¹

The German system is elegant in its simplicity and stands in direct contrast to the fragmented, crisis-driven U.S. model.

It is funded through a dedicated payroll tax, with contributions shared by employers and employees, currently set at around 3.05% of income (slightly higher for childless individuals).⁵¹

This funding mechanism creates a large, stable risk pool that spreads the financial burden of long-term care across the entire working population.

In return for these contributions, all German residents are entitled to benefits if they meet certain care requirements.

The system covers a wide range of services, including care in a nursing home, professional home care, and cash benefits for families who provide care themselves.

Benefits are adjusted based on the individual’s assessed level of need.⁵¹

This model has several key advantages.

First, it provides universal access, ensuring that all citizens can receive necessary long-term care without facing financial ruin.

Second, by making contributions income-based and predictable, it allows individuals and families to plan for the future with a degree of certainty that is impossible in the U.S..⁵¹

It transforms long-term care from a catastrophic individual risk into a manageable, collective one.

The German system is not without its challenges.

Like all systems in aging societies, it faces long-term financial sustainability pressures as the ratio of retirees to workers shifts.⁵¹

It also relies heavily on migrant labor to fill caregiving roles, raising concerns about wages and working conditions.⁵¹

However, it provides a powerful and functioning example of a society that has made a deliberate choice to treat long-term care as a fundamental part of its social insurance contract.

It demonstrates that a universal, public solution to the long-term care crisis is not only possible but can be successfully implemented on a national scale.

Part IV: Medicare the Idea – The Battle for America’s Healthcare Soul

The fourth and final front in the Medicare debate is the most ambitious and ideologically charged.

“Medicare the Idea” represents the push to transform Medicare from a program for the elderly and disabled into a universal, single-payer system for all Americans.

This proposal, popularly known as “Medicare for All,” is not merely a reform but a revolution.

It seeks to complete the expansionary journey that some of Medicare’s original architects envisioned and, in doing so, forces a fundamental reckoning with America’s values and its relationship with healthcare.

Section 4.1: Beyond the Bumper Sticker: What “Medicare for All” Actually Proposes

At its core, “Medicare for All” (M4A) is a proposal to establish a national health insurance program that would replace the current patchwork of private insurance, employer-sponsored plans, Medicaid, and the existing Medicare program with a single government-run plan.⁵³

Proponents see this as the logical fulfillment of the original Medicare promise, arguing that the program’s expansionary potential was stalled after its initial success.⁵⁴

The most prominent legislative proposals, such as those introduced by Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Pramila Jayapal, outline a system with several key features ⁵³:

• Universal Coverage: The program would cover all residents of the United States automatically, from birth.⁵⁶
• Comprehensive Benefits: The benefit package would be exceptionally broad, covering not only all medically necessary hospital and doctor services but also the major gaps in the current system, including comprehensive dental, vision, hearing, mental health, and long-term care services.⁵³
• Elimination of Cost-Sharing: For the vast majority of covered services, the plan would eliminate premiums, deductibles, and copayments. The principle is that care should be free at the point of service, removing financial barriers that can cause people to delay or forgo necessary treatment.⁵⁵
• The End of Private Insurance as We Know It: Private health insurers would be prohibited from selling coverage that duplicates the benefits offered by the public plan. Their role would be relegated to providing purely supplemental insurance for services not deemed medically necessary, such as cosmetic surgery.⁵³ This would effectively dismantle the private health insurance industry’s central role in the U.S. system.
• Phased Transition: Recognizing the immense scale of such a change, the proposals typically include a multi-year transition period, often four years, during which younger populations would be enrolled first, gradually expanding to cover everyone.⁵⁶

This vision is transformative.

It would move the United States from its unique, multi-payer, employment-based system to a single-payer model more in line with other developed nations, though, as we will see, often far more generous in its proposed scope.

Section 4.2: The Price of a New System: Costs, Taxes, and Economic Impact

The sheer scale of Medicare for All carries a staggering price tag.

Because the plan would shift nearly all private and out-of-pocket health spending onto the public ledger, it would require a massive increase in federal financing.

Independent analyses estimate the additional federal cost to be between $25 trillion and $35 trillion over a ten-year period.⁵⁸

Financing a program of this magnitude would necessitate broad and substantial tax increases, the likes of which have not been seen in modern American history.

Proponents argue that these new taxes would not be an additional cost but would replace all current healthcare spending, including premiums, deductibles, copayments, and employer contributions.

The financing options are varied and significant, with one analysis estimating that it would require a new 32% payroll tax (split between employers and employees) or a 25% income surtax on top of existing income taxes.⁵⁸

The economic debate surrounding M4A is fierce and deeply divided.

Proponents point to two major sources of potential savings that could offset some of the costs.

First, by moving to a single administrative system, the country could eliminate the immense overhead and marketing costs of the private insurance industry, as well as the administrative burden that providers face when dealing with hundreds of different insurance plans.

These administrative savings have been estimated at $350 billion to $450 billion annually.⁵³

Second, by providing universal, comprehensive coverage with no cost-sharing, the plan could lead to better health outcomes, as people would seek preventive care earlier and manage chronic conditions more effectively, potentially saving tens of thousands of lives and reducing long-term costs.⁵³

Opponents, however, warn of severe negative economic consequences.

The Penn Wharton Budget Model, for instance, projected that financing M4A through a payroll tax could reduce the nation’s GDP by over 7% in 2030, as high tax rates could disincentivize work and investment.⁵⁸

The debate thus hinges on a complex calculation: would the efficiency gains and improved health outcomes of a single-payer system be large enough to overcome the economic drag of the massive tax increases required to fund it?

Section 4.3: A World of Difference: M4A vs. Canada and the UK

The Medicare for All debate in the U.S. is often framed by comparisons to the healthcare systems in Canada and the United Kingdom.

However, these comparisons can be misleading, as the leading M4A proposals in the U.S. are in many ways far more ambitious than their international counterparts.

• Canada’s “Medicare”: Canada has a single-payer system, but it is administered at the provincial level, not nationally.⁵⁹ The most crucial difference is in the benefit package. The Canada Health Act guarantees coverage for “medically necessary” hospital and physician services, but it does
  not mandate coverage for outpatient prescription drugs, dental care, or vision care.⁶⁰ Most Canadians rely on private supplemental insurance, often through their employers, to cover these services—a situation ironically similar to the U.S. system M4A seeks to replace.⁶¹ This makes the comprehensive, “first-dollar” coverage proposed in U.S. M4A bills significantly more generous than the Canadian system. The Canadian model also involves trade-offs that are central to the U.S. debate: while costs are lower, patients often face long wait times to see specialists and may have less access to the latest high-tech medical equipment compared to the U.S..⁶⁰
• The UK’s National Health Service (NHS): The NHS is fundamentally different from what M4A proposes. The NHS is not just a single-payer system; it is a socialized medicine system. The government doesn’t just pay the bills; it owns many of the hospitals and directly employs many of the doctors.⁶³ M4A, in contrast, would keep the delivery of care largely in the hands of private doctors and hospitals. The NHS provides care that is free at the point of use, a principle M4A shares, but it is a system that perennially struggles with funding constraints, staffing shortages, and long waiting lists for elective procedures.⁶⁴

A more recent and relevant point of comparison is the drug price negotiation provision enacted in the U.S. as part of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act.

For the first time, this law gave Medicare the authority to negotiate prices directly with manufacturers, albeit for a small, select list of high-cost drugs.⁶⁶

This policy represents a small-scale implementation of the kind of negotiating power that a single-payer M4A system would wield across the entire healthcare sector.

The ongoing debate over this new law—with the pharmaceutical industry warning it will stifle innovation and proponents arguing it is a necessary check on prices—serves as a real-world microcosm of the larger ideological battle at the heart of Medicare for All.⁶⁶

This international context is critical because it reveals that there is no single, monolithic “universal healthcare” model.

Each country has made different choices and accepted different trade-offs.

The table below provides a snapshot of these diverse approaches to senior care, highlighting how the U.S. system and the proposed M4A model fit into the global landscape.

Table 3: International Healthcare Systems at a Glance: Senior Care

Feature	United States (Current System)	Canada (Medicare)	United Kingdom (NHS)	Germany (Sickness Funds + LTCI)
Funding Mechanism	Mix: Payroll taxes, general revenue, premiums, out-of-pocket payments.63	Publicly funded through federal and provincial taxes.61	Publicly funded through general taxation.63	Mandatory contributions to “sickness funds” (payroll tax); separate mandatory LTCI payroll tax.51
Basic Coverage Principle	Near-universal for 65+ (Medicare); patchwork for under 65.6	Universal for all residents.59	Universal for all residents.71	Universal for all residents.72
Role of Private Insurance	Dominant for under 65; essential supplemental role for seniors (Medigap, MA).7	Supplemental for services not covered by public plan (Rx drugs, dental, vision).60	Minor supplemental role for faster access to elective care.71	Supplemental role; substitutive role for high-income earners who opt out of public funds.72
Coverage for Seniors	Dental/Vision: Not covered by Original Medicare.31	Rx Drugs: Covered by Part D (private plans).7	LTC: Not covered.50	Dental/Vision/Rx Drugs: Not covered by public plan.60	LTC: Varies by province, generally not comprehensive.	Dental/Vision/Rx Drugs: Generally covered with some copayments.63	LTC: Means-tested social care, not part of NHS.	Dental: Partially covered.21	Rx Drugs: Covered with small copayments.72	LTC: Covered by mandatory universal LTCI.51
Key Advantage	Access to advanced technology; choice of providers/insurers (for those who can afford it).63	Universal access to core medical services; lower administrative costs.62	Care is free at point of service; equitable access regardless of income.63	Universal coverage with provider choice; universal LTC coverage.51
Key Disadvantage	High costs; large uninsured/underinsured population; complex; no LTC coverage.50	Long wait times for specialists; gaps in coverage (Rx, dental).60	Long wait times; funding/staffing pressures; government rationing.64	Sustainability challenges with aging population; high payroll tax burden.51

This comparative analysis reveals that the Medicare for All debate is not simply about whether to adopt another country’s system.

It is a debate about national values.

The fierce opposition to M4A, voiced by groups like the AHA and others, is rooted in a deep-seated American cultural preference for market-based mechanisms, consumer choice, and a limited role for government.⁴¹

They argue against a “one-size-fits-all” plan and the massive disruption it would cause to a system that, they claim, works for most people.

The M4A movement, conversely, champions the principle of social solidarity, arguing that healthcare is a human right that should be decommodified and guaranteed by a public system.

This clash of ideologies is the defining battle for the soul of American healthcare.

It asks Americans to decide what they value more: the freedom of the marketplace or the security of a universal promise.

Conclusion: A New Compact for Care – Forging a Fifth Medicare

The journey that began at my mother’s kitchen table, amidst a sea of confusing paperwork, led through the four warring territories of the Medicare debate.

We have traversed the landscape of Medicare the Legacy, a proud 1965 promise now teetering on a fiscal cliff, its solvency threatened not by a lack of solutions but by a crisis of political will.

We have explored the sprawling and powerful empire of Medicare the Marketplace, a privatized system that offers the allure of convenience and extra benefits, but at the hidden cost of taxpayer overpayments, barriers to care, and a fundamental shift away from the principles of social insurance.

We have confronted the stark reality of Medicare the Unfinished, a program that leaves seniors vulnerable to financial ruin by failing to cover essential dental, vision, and long-term care, forcing a silent, unresolved debate about the nature of our social contract with the elderly.

And finally, we have examined Medicare the Idea, the revolutionary and divisive vision of Medicare for All that seeks to complete the program’s mission by creating a universal system, forcing a national reckoning over the values of market choice versus social solidarity.

My journey from a confused and anxious daughter to an informed analyst revealed a crucial truth: the path forward cannot be found by choosing one of these four Medicares over the others.

The status quo is a complex, inefficient, and often cruel labyrinth.

The purely privatized marketplace enriches insurers while erecting barriers for the sick.

And a complete, politically explosive overhaul to a single-payer system faces immense cultural and fiscal headwinds.

The solution lies not in picking a side in this four-front war, but in calling a truce and forging a new peace.

We must synthesize the best elements of each framework to create a “Fifth Medicare”—a system that is solvent, rational, equitable, and humane.

This report concludes not with a single magic bullet, but with a proposed path forward grounded in the evidence explored.

This new compact for care would involve a series of deliberate, integrated reforms:

1. Stabilize the Legacy: The first step must be to secure the foundation. Congress should immediately act to ensure the solvency of the Hospital Insurance trust fund. This can be achieved through a balanced package of the options detailed by the CBO, such as combining a modest, phased-in increase in the HI payroll tax with targeted reductions in provider payments and meaningful reforms to the Medicare Advantage payment system. This would end the perpetual crisis cycle and restore confidence in the legacy program’s future.
2. Level the Marketplace: The current Medicare Advantage model is not a fair competition; it is a subsidized one. Congress must reform the MA payment system to eliminate the billions in overpayments that result from risk-adjustment gaming (“upcoding”) and favorable selection. Payments to private plans should be brought in line with the actual costs of care in traditional Medicare. This would force MA plans to compete on the basis of true efficiency and quality of care, not on their ability to manipulate a flawed payment formula. It would also generate substantial savings that could be used to improve the program for everyone.
3. Finish the Mission: The savings generated from MA payment reform should be immediately reinvested to fill the most egregious gaps in the traditional Medicare benefit package. A comprehensive dental, vision, and hearing benefit should be added to Part B, making these essential services available to all beneficiaries, not just those who can afford supplemental plans or who enroll in MA. This would be a monumental step in modernizing the program to meet the actual health needs of older Americans.
4. Solve the Catastrophe: The United States must finally confront the long-term care crisis. Following the evidence from successful international models, Congress should create a new, universal long-term care insurance program. This could be structured as a new Part E of Medicare, funded by a dedicated, mandatory payroll tax, similar to the German LTCI system. It would provide a baseline of protection against the catastrophic costs of nursing home and home-based care, preserving the savings and dignity of millions of American families.

Fixing Medicare is not merely a fiscal exercise or a political game.

It is a moral imperative.

It is about honoring the promise of security and dignity that was made in 1965 and ensuring that it holds true for my mother’s generation and for all the generations to come.

The path through the maze is not to choose one of its flawed corridors, but to tear down the walls and build a better, more coherent, and more compassionate system in their place.

Works cited

1. Common Challenges for Beneficiary Care Transitio – CMS, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.cms.gov/about-cms/story-page/challenges-for-beneficiary-care-transitions.pdf
2. The Transition to Medicare Podcast, accessed August 6, 2025, https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-transition-to-medicare-podcast/id1338189515
3. History | CMS, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.cms.gov/about-cms/who-we-are/history
4. Social Security History, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.ssa.gov/history/ssa/lbjmedicare1.html
5. Medicare Signed into Law – Senate.gov, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Medicare_Signed_Into_Law.htm
6. An Overview of Medicare – KFF, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-brief/an-overview-of-medicare/
7. Medicare 101 – KFF, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.kff.org/health-policy-101-medicare/
8. Key Milestones in Medicare and Medicaid History, Selected Years: 1965-2003 – PMC, accessed August 6, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4194922/
9. OBBBA Would Accelerate Social Security & Medicare Insolvency, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.crfb.org/blogs/obbba-would-accelerate-social-security-medicare-insolvency
10. CBO’s Medicare Savings Options-2025-01-16, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.crfb.org/blogs/cbos-medicare-savings-options
11. Medicare Solvency Roundtable: Insights from Leading Experts to Keep Medicare on Solid Financial Ground | Urban Institute, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.urban.org/research/publication/medicare-solvency-roundtable-insights-leading-experts-keep-medicare-solid-financial-ground
12. Visualizing CBO’s Budget and Economic Outlook: 2025 – Bipartisan Policy Center, accessed August 6, 2025, https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/visualizing-cbos-budget-and-economic-outlook-2025/
13. Analysis of CBO’s March 2025 Long-Term Budget Outlook, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.crfb.org/papers/analysis-cbos-march-2025-long-term-budget-outlook
14. The Long-Term Budget Outlook: 2025 to 2055, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61270
15. The Long-Term Budget Outlook: 2025 to 2055 – Congressional Budget Office, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61187
16. CED Issues Statement on January 2025 Congressional Budget Office Outlook, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.conference-board.org/press/ced-issues-statement-jan-2025-cbo-outlook
17. Medicare | Congressional Budget Office, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.cbo.gov/topics/retirement/medicare
18. Medicare | KFF, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.kff.org/medicare/
19. Medicare Advantage in 2024: Premiums, Out-of-Pocket Limits, Supplemental Benefits, and Prior Authorization | KFF, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-brief/medicare-advantage-in-2024-premiums-out-of-pocket-limits-supplemental-benefits-and-prior-authorization/
20. What Does Medicare Not Cover? Eight Things You Should Know | Kiplinger, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.kiplinger.com/retirement/medicare/what-does-medicare-not-cover
21. When Costs Are a Barrier to Getting Health Care: Reports from Older Adults in the United States and Other High-Income Countries – Commonwealth Fund, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/surveys/2021/oct/when-costs-are-barrier-getting-health-care-older-adults-survey
22. Tips for navigating the basics of Medicare – Securian Financial, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.securian.com/insights-tools/articles/medicare-tips-in-retirement.html
23. Medicare Advantage in 2025: Enrollment Update and Key Trends – KFF, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-brief/medicare-advantage-enrollment-update-and-key-trends/
24. Medicare Advantage Enrollment Reaches 54% In 2025, Drives Rising Federal Spending, accessed August 6, 2025, https://homehealthcarenews.com/2025/07/medicare-advantage-enrollment-reaches-54-in-2025-drives-rising-federal-spending/
25. What is a Medicare Advantage plan? How does it differ from traditional Medicare? – KFF, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.kff.org/faqs/medicare-open-enrollment-faqs/what-is-a-medicare-advantage-plan-how-does-it-differ-from-traditional-medicare/
26. Medicare Advantage in 2025: Premiums, Out-of-Pocket Limits, Supplemental Benefits, and Prior Authorization | KFF, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-brief/medicare-advantage-premiums-out-of-pocket-limits-supplemental-benefits-and-prior-authorization/
27. Dental, Hearing, and Vision Costs and Coverage Among Medicare …, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.kff.org/health-costs/issue-brief/dental-hearing-and-vision-costs-and-coverage-among-medicare-beneficiaries-in-traditional-medicare-and-medicare-advantage/
28. Medicare Advantage – AHIP, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.ahip.org/issues/medicare-advantage
29. Ensuring Stability for 32 Million Medicare Advantage Beneficiaries in 2025 – AHIP, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.ahip.org/news/articles/ensuring-stability-for-32-million-medicare-advantage-beneficiaries-in-2025
30. AHIP In The Washington Post: MA Decisively Outperforms FFS on Affordability, Benefits & Outcomes, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.ahip.org/news/articles/ahip-in-the-washington-post-ma-decisively-outperforms-ffs-on-affordability-benefits-outcomes
31. What’s not covered? – Medicare, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.medicare.gov/providers-services/original-medicare/not-covered
32. Medicare Advantage in 2025: What the Latest Data Tells Us | Eriksen Insurance Group, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.erikseninsurance.com/2025/07/28/medicare-advantage-in-2025-what-the-latest-data-tells-us/
33. Growth in Medicare Advantage Raises Concerns | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.cbpp.org/research/health/growth-in-medicare-advantage-raises-concerns
34. A Stronger Medicare Program—Now And Into The Future | Health Affairs Forefront, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/forefront.20250107.847453/
35. Listen to Medicare & Health Care Stories – Center for Medicare …, accessed August 6, 2025, https://medicareadvocacy.org/voices-of-medicare/
36. AHIP Statement on Protecting Coverage & Benefits for Millions of Medicare Advantage Seniors, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.ahip.org/news/press-releases/ahip-statement-on-protecting-coverage-benefits-for-millions-of-medicare-advantage-seniors
37. Underfunding Medicare Advantage Would Compound the Impact of Two Years of Cuts, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.ahip.org/news/articles/underfunding-medicare-advantage-would-compound-the-impact-of-two-years-of-cuts
38. Advocacy in action: Leading the charge to reform Medicare pay …, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.ama-assn.org/practice-management/medicare-medicaid/advocacy-action-leading-charge-reform-medicare-pay
39. 7 tips for physicians to engage Congress during August recess, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.ama-assn.org/practice-management/medicare-medicaid/7-tips-physicians-engage-congress-during-august-recess
40. Health Care Payment Reform Advocacy – American Medical Association, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.ama-assn.org/health-care-advocacy/payment-reform
41. Fact Sheet: Medicare for All | American Hospital Association, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.aha.org/system/files/media/file/2019/09/fact-sheet-medicare-for-all-0919.pdf
42. The Impact of Medicare-X Choice on Coverage, Healthcare Use, and Hospitals | AHA, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.aha.org/position-paper/2019-03-11-impact-medicare-x-choice-coverage-healthcare-use-and-hospitals
43. AHA Statement “Exploring Pathways to Affordable, Universal Health …, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.aha.org/testimony/2022-02-17-aha-statement-exploring-pathways-affordable-universal-health-coverage-care
44. How AARP Played a Key Role in the Creation of Medicare, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.aarp.org/about-aarp/history/aarp-helps-shape-medicare.html
45. AARP Statement on Funding Social Security and Medicare, accessed August 6, 2025, https://help.aarp.org/s/article/what-is-the-aarp-statement-on-funding-social-security-and-medicare
46. AARP Universal health care with attention to improving public programs for senior citizens Organization Description, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.aha.org/system/files/content/00-10/0704-uhp-aarp.pdf
47. Response to Ways and Means Republicans Herger, Reichert – AARP, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.aarp.org/about-aarp/romasco-letter-ways-and-means/
48. AARP Announces Support for Senate Health Reform Bill – Obama White House Archives, accessed August 6, 2025, https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2009/12/15/aarp-announces-support-senate-health-reform-bill
49. Excluded from Medicare Coverage: Dental, Vision, and Long-Term Care, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.shiphelp.org/about-medicare/blog/excluded-medicare-coverage-dental-vision-and-long-term-care
50. Dental, vision and long-term care are not covered by Medicare | Raymond Senior Planning, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.raymondseniorplanning.com/dental-vision-and-long-term-care-are-not-covered-by-medicare/
51. German Elder Care – American Bar Association, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.americanbar.org/groups/law_aging/publications/bifocal/vol46/vol46issue3/germaneldercare/
52. What are the differences between Germany’s and the USA’s health care systems, and why is Germany’s considered superior despite both providing universal coverage? – Quora, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-differences-between-Germanys-and-the-USAs-health-care-systems-and-why-is-Germanys-considered-superior-despite-both-providing-universal-coverage
53. Medicare for All Act – Wikipedia, accessed August 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_for_All_Act
54. Lessons From the Long and Winding Road to Medicare for All – PMC – PubMed Central, accessed August 6, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6775897/
55. Medicare for All: What to know about the proposed national health program, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/medicare-for-all
56. S.1655 – Medicare for All Act 118th Congress (2023-2024), accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/1655
57. Medicare For All: An Analysis Of Key Policy Issues | Health Affairs, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2019.01040
58. Choices for Financing Medicare for All – Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.crfb.org/papers/choices-financing-medicare-all
59. Medicare (Canada) – Wikipedia, accessed August 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(Canada)
60. What Is the Difference Between Canadian vs US Medicare …, accessed August 6, 2025, https://clearmatchmedicare.com/blog/medicare/what-is-the-difference-between-canadian-vs-us-medicare
61. Understanding Canada vs US Healthcare – Moving2Canada, accessed August 6, 2025, https://moving2canada.com/living/healthcare/canada-vs-us-healthcare/
62. Comparisons of Health Care Systems in the United States, Germany and Canada – PMC, accessed August 6, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3633404/
63. U.S. Healthcare System Explained For UK Expats, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.shipit.co.uk/blog/us-healthcare-system-explained
64. US vs UK: Healthcare System Showdown – Insurance Insights, accessed August 6, 2025, https://debbieellis.co.uk/us-vs-uk-healthcare-system-showdown-insurance-insights
65. American vs. U.K. Healthcare: The Good and the Bad | The Senior Citizens League, accessed August 6, 2025, https://seniorsleague.org/american-vs-u-k-healthcare-the-good-and-the-bad/
66. Medicare Drug Price Negotiations: All You Need to Know …, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/explainer/2025/may/medicare-drug-price-negotiations-all-you-need-know
67. Medicare Drug Price Negotiations 2025 – Definitive Healthcare, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.definitivehc.com/blog/medicare-drug-price-negotiations
68. Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Under the Inflation Reduction Act: Industry Responses and Potential Effects | Congress.gov, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R47872
69. What to know about Medicare drug price negotiation – American Medical Association, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.ama-assn.org/practice-management/medicare-medicaid/what-know-about-medicare-drug-price-negotiation
70. US vs. Canadian Healthcare: What is The Difference? | RUSM, accessed August 6, 2025, https://medical.rossu.edu/about/blog/us-vs-canadian-healthcare
71. England | International Health Care System Profiles – Commonwealth Fund, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.commonwealthfund.org/international-health-policy-center/countries/england
72. Healthcare in Germany – Wikipedia, accessed August 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Germany
73. Competition of the 21st Century: United States vs. Germany – Which Healthcare System Is Superior? – sites@gsu, accessed August 6, 2025, https://sites.gsu.edu/gsuglobalhealth/2021/02/15/competition-of-the-21st-century-united-states-vs-germany-which-healthcare-system-is-superior/