Trending
This letter is a rebuttal to a letter published on Sept. 24, 2026. The letter titled "Why did Michiganders elect El-Sayed?" takes a complicated problem and presents a simple solution: put everything under one government payer, call it "free," and tell taxpayers they will somehow have more money in their pockets. That isn’t a serious explanation of how health care works.
Abdul El-Sayed is not a licensed practicing physician. He earned a medical degree but never completed a medical residency and therefore did not become a licensed practicing doctor. His public-health background should not be presented as equivalent to practicing medicine.
More importantly, look at his agenda. Medicare for All would expand the federal government’s role in financing health care. El-Sayed has advocated greater government involvement and public ownership in parts of the economy. These are consequential policy choices.
Then comes the biggest contradiction: "free" health care and "more money in your pockets."
There is no such thing as free health care. Doctors, nurses, hospitals and prescription drugs all cost money. Somebody pays every dollar. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that federal health-care spending under illustrative single-payer systems could increase by roughly $1.5 trillion to $3 trillion in 2030, depending on the system’s design. So where does that money come from? Taxes. Borrowing. Reduced spending somewhere else. Or some combination. Calling it "Medicare for All" doesn’t change that arithmetic.
Eliminating premiums doesn’t make those costs disappear. If employers are no longer paying private insurance premiums, that doesn’t automatically put that money into employees’ bank accounts. Under a government-financed system, the cost is shifted to another financing mechanism.
The letter also portrays private insurance, pharmaceutical companies and hospitals as though profit alone explains America’s health-care costs. Government programs have administrative costs too, and government control does not automatically produce efficiency.
Nor does giving everyone coverage with little or no cost at the point of service eliminate scarcity. If you make something effectively free to the consumer, demand rises. CBO found that utilization would increase under the single-payer systems it examined. If demand grows faster than the supply of doctors and medical services, congestion and delays can result.
None of this means Americans should accept unaffordable health care. It means we should demand solutions that survive economic scrutiny. Price transparency, competition, health savings accounts, and regulatory changes are legitimate subjects for debate.
But "government pays for everything" is not the same thing as "everything is free." The American taxpayer deserves more than slogans. The question is why anyone would promote these claims without addressing financing and tradeoffs. El-Sayed’s proposed agenda deserves scrutiny… it’s dangerous.
Before anyone promises no premiums, no deductibles, no out-of-pocket costs, and more money in your pocket, ask one simple question:
Who pays the bill--and how much will it cost the people being told they’re getting it for free?