El-Sayed admits free healthcare means paying 'a little bit more in taxes' regardless of income
Michigan Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed appeared to admit on Sunday's "Meet the Press" that everyone, regardless of income, would have to pay "a little bit more in taxes" for universal healthcare.
NBC News host Kristen Welker asked El-Sayed about his support for Medicare for All and whether Americans need to worry about paying more taxes to make it possible.
El-Sayed answered that he was in favor of raising taxes on billionaires but seemed to concede that even Americans earning under $1 million or less would also see their taxes increase.
"So, for the average person, when you look at your W2, if you’re an employee who gets paid every two weeks or four weeks, after you pay your taxes, the next biggest check that comes off the top of your pay stub is to your health insurance company," El-Sayed answered.
El-Sayed went on to describe what this would look like in action.
"So imagine, instead of paying that to your health insurance company, whose CEO makes $20 million a year, instead, you paid a little bit more in taxes for healthcare that you wouldn’t lose if you lost your job or turned 26 or got married or got divorced. I think all of us would be a lot more interested in that kind of a system if we knew that our healthcare would be free at the point of care and would be free without having to worry about losing it, in general," he said.
He continued, "So there’s an opportunity here, I think, to trade what we give to a big corporation, who gets to decide who we get to see and who we don’t, for a little bit more paid into FICA. And I think that’s a trade that’s worth making."
‘SPECIAL SAUCE OF CRAZY’ — MIDWEST DEM CANDIDATE’S POLICIES TOO EXTREME FOR VOTERS: OPPONENT
Welker questioned if this meant taxes would go up for anyone who wasn't a millionaire.
"Just to be very clear, you’re describing this trade-off. You are effectively acknowledging that people making less than a million dollars could see their taxes go up. I just want to be very clear. Is that a yes?" Welker asked.
"I’m saying that we’d be paying for healthcare in a different way. Instead of paying a health insurance company, whose CEO makes $20 million, I would much rather pay for durable healthcare into a government, which, of course, we all know provides healthcare for seniors who need healthcare the most. So, if I’m trading paying a CEO to make more money or paying a government to guarantee me healthcare, I’m picking the latter every time," El-Sayed said.
Fox News Digital reached out to El-Sayed's campaign for comment but did not immediately hear back.
El-Sayed's GOP opponent, Mike Rogers, commented on the interview on X, denouncing El-Sayed's proposal as more money for the government.
HASAN PIKER CALLS FOR DEMOCRATS WHO OPPOSE ABDUL EL-SAYED TO BE 'PUNISHED'
"Weird. I thought Abdul’s campaign promise was more money in your pocket. This sounds a lot like more money for the government," Rogers wrote.
El-Sayed defeated establishment-backed candidate Haley Stevens in the Democratic primary last week after facing several controversies for campaigning with far-left Twitch streamer Hasan Piker.
Though El-Sayed supports policies like Medicare for All and taxing billionaires, he has insisted that he was not a socialist and did not endorse every position within the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA).
However, longtime Democrats, like former Hillary Clinton campaign strategist Julian Epstein, have viewed El-Sayed's ascension as a further sign that the Democratic Party is "off the deep end."
"The Democrats have gone off the deep end," Epstein told Fox News Digital. "I think the lunatics are in charge of the asylum. I think that there is no room in the tent for people that want to destroy our Constitution. There's no room in the tent for people that want to align themselves with radical Islam. There's no room in a tent for people that want to align themselves with antisemitism."
Political analyst Eric Ham said El-Sayed's victory in the primary is part of a broader battle over control of the Democratic Party itself.
"The ongoing battle between the establishment and DSA is about control of the party itself. In fact, DSA's primary target is not Trump or even taking back power in Washington," Ham told Fox News Digital.
"Their main objective is to wrest control of the Party. As evidence, look no further than Mamdani's support of two progressive Dems to unseat incumbent lawmakers; El Sayed's upstart victory in Michigan against an incumbent who polled better against [Mike] Rogers; or even [Cori] Bush who attempted to win her seat back against an establishment lawmaker that defeated her," he said.
"This attempted coup will continue through 2028 even if it means costing Dems the White House. DSA wants to win but on their terms and right now the focus is internal," Ham said.