A 2009 study estimated that lack of health insurance was linked to 45,000 deaths annually in the U.S. A more recent study, published in the respected medical journal The Lancet in 2020, found that Medicare for All could prevent about 68,000 unnecessary deaths per year—staggering figures for the wealthiest nation in the world.

Opponents of Medicare for All argue that a government-run healthcare system could lead to inefficiencies, mismanagement, and lower quality of care, ultimately increasing mortality rates. However, the success of government-run programs like traditional Medicare and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare system contradicts this pessimistic view. Additionally, evidence from other countries with universal healthcare systems disproves this claim, as these nations achieve better health outcomes while spending about half as much per capita.

M4A would eliminate the phenomenon of "job lock," where people stay in jobs they dislike solely for health benefits. By decoupling health insurance from employment, M4A would allow individuals the freedom to change jobs, start businesses, or pursue nontraditional career paths without worrying about losing healthcare coverage. This could foster innovation and entrepreneurship.

Opponents argue that employer-provided health insurance incentivizes productivity. However, research suggests that job satisfaction and intrinsic motivation are stronger drivers of productivity than benefits.