That's now how it would work. Medicare for all merely replaces health care dollars already being spent ( it is not an added on cost, therefore ), and redirects it into a more efficient non-insurance based system which will reduce the overall cost of health care for everyone by eliminating an unnecessary industry ( they will have to find more productive work ). It is precisely this fact that in the 50 or so western developed countries that have some version of UHC that the per capita costs of health care in those countries is roughly half of what it is in the United States.
That being said, I don't think America would vote for it, yet, so I'm for a public option, and let those who want private insurance keep it. Just expand medicare for everyone else. But, this scenario would, indeed, cost society more than medicare for all would. If we had a strong candidate who could make the case, I'd support medicare for all. Perhaps Harris is that person.
No one is saying that it will not cost, it wil be supported with taxes and remove existing health premiums, at a NET SAVINGS to individuals.
This will NOT put private clinics out of work, they will still be private, it's just that medicare is paying the tab, it's called "single payer". Doctors will have to compete on service, not price. ( but they do, anyway, because most people have plans ).
Of course, doctors, many, will resist because medicare dictates what they recieve. I think a fair and equitable solution to costs should be hashed out, to the satisfaction of everyone, in order for it to work.
Perhaps the public option idea is better, at this juncture.
