Or, we could just realize that when you say "benefits," what you're mostly talking about is stuff like health insurance, which can be handled more efficiently by moving to a single payer system. I don't have a reference immediately handy, but there was a study done a little before the 2016 elections that pointed out how single payer (essentially Medicare for All) would reduce costs throughout the healthcare system, while still providing an excellent quality of care.
> I don't have a reference immediately handy, but there was a study done a little before the 2016 elections
A more recent survey of studies looking at single payer healthcare plans found[0]:
"The evidence abounds: A "Medicare for All" single-payer system would guarantee comprehensive coverage to everyone in America and save money.
Christopher Cai and colleagues at three University of California campuses examined 22 studies on the projected cost impact for single-payer health insurance in the United States and reported their findings in a recent paper in PLOS Medicine. Every single study predicted that it would yield net savings over several years. In fact, it’s the only way to rein in health care spending significantly in the U.S.
All of the studies, regardless of ideological orientation, showed that long-term cost savings were likely. Even the Mercatus Center, a right-wing think tank, recently found about $2 trillion in net savings over 10 years from a single-payer Medicare for All system. Most importantly, everyone in America would have high-quality health care coverage."
