Michigan Truth Squad: Abdul El-Sayed promises single-payer healthcare

Abdul El-Sayed

August 2018 update: Gretchen Whitmer wins Democratic primary for Michigan governor

Given his background, it’s perhaps no surprise Democratic candidate Abdul El-Sayed has made health care a centerpiece of his Michigan gubernatorial campaign.

Before running, El-Sayed was Detroit’s public health director, where he championed causes like reducing infant mortality, getting free glasses for poor kids and fighting airborne polluters like Marathon Petroleum in the city’s heavily industrialized southwest neighborhoods.

The claim

An El-Sayed press release declares: “I will drive D.C. to pass Medicare for All, and if they can’t, then we’ll do what it takes to achieve universal healthcare as a state."

Screenshot from El-Sayed's website

The Columbia University-educated physician has  planted his progressive flag alongside that of former Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders: El-Sayed promises that, as governor, he will get a single-payer system and health care for all in Michigan. “We’ll do what it takes to achieve universal healthcare as a state,” he said in a July press release.

Primary rival and former state Senate Democratic leader Gretchen Whitmer hasn’t said if she would support such a plan, stating on her campaign website only that she would “work with anyone who wants to expand coverage.” Businessman Shri Thanedar, another Democratic hopeful, said he “will explore a single-payer healthcare structure.”

Thus far, it’s been a campaign of big promises by Democrats. Whitmer, Thanedar and El-Sayed also pledge free college tuition and universal preschool. They’re not exactly saying how they would pay for that.

On this one – universal health care – what are we to make of El-Sayed’s promise?

The facts

“I will drive D.C. to pass Medicare for All”

To call this vow a tall order is an understatement.

El-Sayed implies that as governor of Michigan he could somehow move Congress to pass a government-run health care plan that recent history tells us would surely face enormous pushback from Republicans. Republicans now control both the House and Senate, though it’s conceivable Democrats could overturn that in November.


So, in this hypothetical exercise, let’s assume Democrats win back Congress. Even with that, it’s far from clear that enough Democrats would support such a radical change in health care. It would replace virtually all private insurance it with a vastly expanded government program. In theory, everyone would have access to care without out-of-pocket costs. Doctors and pharmaceutical firms would make less.

In September, Sanders introduced a Medicare for All bill, attracting 15 Senate co-sponsors. That’s 35 votes short of what it would likely need for passage. Again, Truth Squad assumes such a measure would face fierce opposition from Republicans. Given their repeated attempts to repeal Obamacare, that seems like a safe bet.

The U.S. health insurance industry could be expected to fight any single-payer plan. The pharmaceutical industry – which spent more than $200 million in lobbying in 2017 – would be a good bet to wage war against it as well.

So let’s be real. Health care reform is among the most divisive issues before Congress. There’s no evidence even among Democrats of anything close to a consensus for a single-payer system. The notion that national leaders would somehow be transformed by the arguments of an unknown politician in Michigan looks like pure fantasy. Even then, if Medicare for All somehow passed, there’s also the matter of whether President Trump would sign the measure.  

El-Sayed’s press release goes on to say: “If they (Congress) can’t, then we’ll do what it takes to achieve universal healthcare as a state. "

Michigan’s political landscape is somewhat similar to that in Congress.

Republicans control both the House and Senate, with seats in both chambers up for election in 2018. Analysts say it’s conceivable Democrats could take back the House. But Republicans hold a 27-to-11 margin in the Senate and the prospects of Democrats taking that chamber appear remote. The chance of a single-payer bill passing a GOP-controlled Senate would seem even more remote.

In 2017, California had a Democratic supermajority in both legislative chambers. And its experience is instructive in just how difficult it can be to make dramatic changes to health care. A measure to create a government-run, single-payer system in that progressive state died in June when the Assembly speaker pulled the bill from consideration, calling it “woefully inadequate.” Its annual cost was pegged at $400 billion.

El-Sayed makes no mention of how he would pay for such a plan in Michigan.

Asked how this might be done here, a spokesman for El-Sayed said: “Ultimately, change happens because leaders do exactly that ‒ they lead, they drive a statewide agenda. That means proposing and driving bold, transformative solutions that are needed by people across this state and having the will to solve real problems and inspire people.”

The Rating: HALF ACCURATE.  

With approximately 600,000 residents without health insurance, debate over how to improve Michigan’s health care system is surely welcome in the gubernatorial race. There are legitimate disagreements – especially by party – over how it should be reformed.

El-Sayed says the system would be best served if put in the hands of the government. That can be debated as well. Perhaps he can indeed inspire people, in Michigan and elsewhere, to take up this cause if he becomes governor.

But he and his campaign would be better served if he acknowledged that his plan is a goal – not something voters can count on him delivering. Truth Squad gives great deference to any candidate’s articulation of grand ambitions. Vowing to pass national universal healthcare on the left or, say, getting Mexico to pay for a border wall on the right, are grand gestures. Fighting for them is one thing. Promising them to voters ‒ in the face of extraordinary obstacles and common sense ‒ is quite another.

More coverage

Truth Squad: Brian Calley’s claims on Michigan’s economic gains

Truth Squad: Gretchen Whitmer’s role in Larry Nassar case

Truth Squad: Bill Schuette’s track record as Michigan Attorney General


Truth Squad assigns five ratings to the political statements we review, in descending levels of accuracy:

ACCURATE ‒ No factual inaccuracies in the statement and no important information is missing

MOSTLY ACCURATE ‒ While the statement is largely accurate, it omits or exaggerates facts, or needs some clarification   

HALF ACCURATE ‒ Truths are interspersed with mistruths, or the speaker left out significant facts that render his/her remarks misleading in important respects

MOSTLY INACCURATE ‒ The major point or points made are untrue or misleading, even while some aspects of the claim may be accurate

FALSE ‒ The statement is false, or based on false underlying facts

Facts matter. Trust matters. Journalism matters.

If you learned something from the story you're reading please consider supporting our work. Your donation allows us to keep our Michigan-focused reporting and analysis free and accessible to all. All donations are voluntary, but for as little as $1 you can become a member of Bridge Club and support freedom of the press in Michigan during a crucial election year.

Pay with VISA Pay with MasterCard Pay with American Express Donate now

Comment Form

Add new comment

Dear Reader: We value your thoughts and criticism on the articles, but insist on civility. Criticizing comments or ideas is welcome, but Bridge won’t tolerate comments that are false or defamatory or that demean, personally attack, spread hate or harmful stereotypes. Violating these standards could result in a ban.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.


Kevin Grand
Thu, 01/18/2018 - 2:48pm

All in all, I'd give this a fairly thorough review except for two glaring items.

First. where is the mention of rising health care premiums and deductibles? Of insurance companies dropping out of Obamacare exchanges due to their inherent unsustainability?
Of the fact that the current plan based upon "the stupidity of the American Voter" was merely a stepping stone to single payer (of which the person whose name got slapped on the current implicitly acknowledged himself).



That being said, name me one government program that has accomplished its stated goal while coming in on time and on budget?

If the private sector cannot do this, then why should we expect the government to do the same?

Second, wild statements, such as those made above by by Dr. El-Sayed, display a gross ignorance of what the job he is running for actually entails. Mr. Thanedar made an equally embarrassing display of ignorance last year when he couldn't key officials in the government (and he couldn't name more than one).

The governor is an executive position. The do not introduce laws. They only merely sign them (along with a few other specifically enumerated duties).

So for him to "promise" that he will do something outside of his job description is more than a stretch, it's a flat-out lie. The Truth Squad may give "great deference to any candidate’s articulation of grand ambitions," the rest of us who eventually get stuck with the tab for these schemes call it what it is ; pure and naked pandering for votes.

OABTW, Accurate , Mostly Accurate, Half Accurate, Mostly Inaccurate, False...so, what's number six?

Bing Ding Ow
Sat, 02/03/2018 - 9:16pm

Vermont failed to approve single payer
Ditto Colorado.
Calif. , it is mired in bureaucratic muck.

Against Rick Snyder in 2014, the (D) promised "free" everything. And they could not provide working plans, with numbers.

This is the same dreck, IMHO.

David Waymire
Fri, 01/19/2018 - 11:33am

Actually, there is no GOP plan to provide coverage for all. None. They don't even pretend to try. And the actions they have taken have INCREASED the number of uninsured. And they don't care.

Kevin Grand
Sun, 01/21/2018 - 8:51pm

And why should there be any plan, Mr. Waymire?

Let me throw out this very simple question that then-Sen. Levin's Office wouldn't answer and Sen. Stabenow's Office couldn't answer: Exactly where does the federal government derive the authority to involve itself with the health care of its citizens?

Those career politicians who have done nothing else with their lives were unable to provide an answer.

Care to take a shot?

Mon, 01/22/2018 - 12:36am

I'd like to respond from a different starting point. Shall we consider healthcare a universal human right?
I live abroad in a country with national healthcare. Citizens can go to the hospital and see a doctor, receive treatment, and are given prescription medications, all for <$1US.
A private hospital system exists alongside the national scheme.
If the government is to claim the authority you mention, we could say that it is for the purpose of guaranteeing universal access to affordable healthcare throughout the nation, and is not mutually exclusive with legitimate protections of private interests.

Kevin Grand
Mon, 01/22/2018 - 3:18pm


That topic has already been brought up multiple times in the past

We don't need long lines waiting to see a doctor, sitting in an ambulance idling in the parking lot waiting to get into the emergency room, and we CERTAINLY don't need the government telling us that the cost to benefit return on our health care isn't justifiable.

Bing Ding Ow
Sat, 02/03/2018 - 9:21pm

Your "country" hasn't provided a nuclear umbrella for a bunch of complainers for 75 years, and subsidized global medical/pharm research. And everyone knows, NHS is about bankrupt.

We're not letting midgets, lecture us.

Bob Johnson
Sun, 04/01/2018 - 9:05pm

You want health insurance, provide for it yourself, just like most everyone else.

Doug wolf
Tue, 03/27/2018 - 1:00pm

Your use of adjectives and adverbs shows your bias toward the left. Sorry, Im starting a #deleteTruthSquad squad.

Dennis M Bierlein
Tue, 05/29/2018 - 10:07am

Oh, for Krustie's sake, if you applied this criteria to all the candidates, you'd end with the same result. But I'd rather vote for a candidate that aims high and fails than a candidate that says "ain't gonna happen."

Jay Brock
Sun, 07/15/2018 - 11:28pm

Not so sure how accurate your comments are regarding reduced physician income as a given under a single payer: with reduced overhead plus the end of uncompensated care, many physicians may see an increase. Some highly compensated providers may see a reduction in income that has been in progress for some time. Given compensation of physicians in Canada under their single payer that gives them lifestyles commensurate with those on the U.S., that should not be a problem.
Labels of far left or progressive may not be wholly accurate where a single payer has the following attributes that must also appeal to staunch conservatives: cheaper to run; will bend the healthcare cost curve; more competition; less government control, especially compared to the current system; everyone who can contributes; great for business. Once business leaders become more aware, and conservative legislators understand these underlying values, passing single payer might just become more feasible than currently realized.

Aldo Sax
Sat, 07/28/2018 - 10:39pm

Better to offer the moon and negotiate from there than start at the compromise position and get bargained down.