Did Hakeem Jeffries Discover the Price of ‘Free’ Health Care?

Democrat House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries encountered a government program he does not want to expand—at least not “currently.”

Asked recently on NBC’s “Meet the Press” whether he supports “Medicare for All,” Jeffries replied that it is “not legislation that I am currently co-sponsoring or that I support.”

In 2022, while seeking reelection, Jeffries wrote, “I have cosponsored the Medicare for All Act every Congress that I’ve been a Representative.” He entered Congress in 2013. His name appeared on single-payer legislation repeatedly, including the Medicare for All Acts of 2019 and 2021.

So, what happened? Did Jeffries take a closer look at the health systems of Canada and Britain, which the Left insists America should emulate?

Medicare for All is marketed as compassionate, simple, and “free.” It is none of the three. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimated that it would require $25 trillion to $35 trillion in federal financing over 10 years. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that single-payer plans would increase federal health care subsidies by $1.5 trillion to $3 trillion in 2030 alone.

How would Washington raise that money? There are not enough millionaires and billionaires to foot the bill. So, now what?

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget calculated that financing a $30 trillion plan could require a 32% payroll tax, a 25% income surtax, or more than doubling the national debt. Even doubling all individual and corporate income-tax collections would not fully cover the highest estimates.

Advocates insist that families would no longer pay premiums, deductibles and out-of-pocket expenses. But shifting a bill from an insurer to the IRS does not make it disappear—and does not make it free. Promising unlimited care does not create unlimited doctors, nurses, hospital beds or operating rooms.

Americans doubt Washington can keep its current health care promises. A 2025 survey found that 80% of people not yet enrolled in Medicare worry that the program will not be there when they become eligible.

CBO warned that under single-payer, increased demand would exceed increased supply, producing more unmet demand. There is, however, a “solution” for this: waiting lines.

Look at Britain. The latest British Social Attitudes survey found only 26% satisfied with the National Health Service, while 51% were dissatisfied. Asked about NHS care over the next five years, 53% expected it to worsen—including 15% who said, “much worse.” Only 16% expected improvement; 29% expected it to remain about the same.

In England, the BBC reported in March that 16% of nearly 2,600 people surveyed used private care during the previous year, up from 9% two years earlier. Four in 10 who paid for care cited long NHS waits.

The wealthier the patient, the easier the escape. The survey found that 35% of those earning more than $108,000 used private care, compared with 10% of those earning less than $27,000.

At the time, England had more than 7 million cases on its elective-treatment waiting list. Roughly 2.5 million had waited longer than 18 weeks, and more than 100,000 had waited over a year.

Look at Canada. An Ipsos poll in 2025 found 56% satisfied with their provincial system. Yet a newer Nanos survey found 70% dissatisfied with the state of healthcare, and that nine in 10 want major change. The Canadian Medical Association acknowledges that about 20% of Canadians awaiting elective surgery wait more than a year.

Claude Castonguay, often called the father of Quebec medicare, declared the system in “crisis.” He recommended a greater private-sector role so patients could exercise freedom of choice. In 2009, incoming Canadian Medical Association president Dr. Anne Doig was more direct: “We all agree that the system is imploding.”

America’s system has problems: high prices, maddening paperwork, uneven access, and too little transparency. Reform it. Increase competition. Expand portable coverage. Give consumers price information. Strengthen the safety net for those truly unable to pay.

But do not pretend government can abolish scarcity with a comforting name. Do Americans want taxes high enough to finance another $30 trillion in federal promises? Do they want Washington deciding what doctors and hospitals will be paid? Do they want British-style waiting lists and Canadian-style delays?

Jeffries apparently thinks not, too—at least “currently.” The question is whether he changed his mind after studying the costs and inconveniences Americans would not tolerate. Or did Jeffries merely change his answer—ahead of the midterm elections—after studying the polls?

COPYRIGHT 2026 CREATORS.COM

We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.