There is no doubt that a tax-based universal system would be administratively simpler for everyone and would reduce the gross disparities resulting from current arrangements. In 1958, 75 percent of Americans received health insurance, and significant efforts were made in preserving such services. Many employers on Medicare for All are ambivalent. A universal, tax-based, single-payer system that would cost middle-class families less, add benefits, and leave largely intact arrangements for private sector providers is theoretically possible. But as Sen. Bernie Sanders acknowledged in the debate stage of the Democratic Party, a major tax overhaul would be required. According to the latest Kaiser Family Foundation tracking poll, public support for Medicare for All drops from 51 percent to 37 percent when people are told it would increase taxes. When Medicare for All is told that private insurance would end, result in delays in treatment, or pose a threat to traditional Medicare, there is a massive drop in public support. The main reason behind Medicare for All still being accepted by a bare majority is that it offers universal coverage which reduces out-of-pocket costs. Only studied contrasting solutions to expanding coverage by the Commonwealth Fund and the Urban Institute. We found that changing the ACA will protect 98 percent of Americans at a tenth of Medicare’s cost to All by creating a public choice replacement. The Democratic-controlled House works to limit family spending on health care as the intraparty debate rages. The bill to curtail the pricing power for high-cost medications by the drug industry would also set limits on the overall out-of-pocket costs for Medicare beneficiaries. However, pragmatic solutions to their imminent healthcare cost challenges are what most people desire, not a radical restructuring of the entire system.