Younger people, with the possible exception of the highest-earning younger people, would likely benefit from Medicare for All. Currently, coverage for older and

Younger people, with the possible exception of the highest-earning younger people, would likely benefit from Medicare for All. Currently, coverage for older and unhealthy people is cross-subsidized by younger and healthier people, due to the ACA's 3:1 age band and "adjusted community rating" respectively. It's unlikely that Medicare for All or any other broad public insurance program would be paid for by taxes on younger people specifically. More likely, instead of older and unhealthy people's insurance being cross-subsidized by younger people, it will be subsidized by high-earning and/or wealthy people. I agree that freedom of religion makes things tricky. In fact, I'd broaden it to freedom of choice in general. Should we tax obese people because we don't want to subsidize their poor health decisions? What about smokers? How many times should we pay for expensive rehab facilities for drug addicts who repeatedly relapse? How long should we pay for comatose, vegetative patients to occupy hospital beds? But for what it's worth, all of these decisions are already being made (to the extent that regulation allows) by private insurers, and while they'll be tricky regardless, I'd rather have them made by the government than by the private sector.