The parties and social programs: pensions, grants and health

The “social welfare” amendment published on 2 December 2024 changed Articles 4 and 27 of the Constitution. It lowers to 65, for everyone, the age for the non-contributory pension for older adults (since 2020 it had been 68, and 65 for Indigenous and Afro-Mexican people); requires the federal and state governments to guarantee a pension to people with permanent disabilities under 65; says that the money the State spends on the rights in that article paid through direct transfers “may not be reduced in real terms” from one year to the next; and, in Article 27, guarantees direct support and guaranteed prices for farmers (DOF, 2 December 2024).

In the Chamber of Deputies, the amendment was passed in general unanimously, by 483 votes: all six groups voted in favor. Only on the reserved articles did the PAN part ways, voting against (0 to 65) (Parliamentary Gazette, 22 October 2024). Whether the programs should exist is not in dispute; how they should work is: for everyone or for those who have least, who delivers them and how people without social security get health care.

The test covers these questions in the topic “Health and social programs”, with five statements, all in the main test. These are the eight parties’ positions, each based on a roll-call vote in the Chamber, a platform, a founding document or a legislative agenda. An asterisk (*) marks an estimated position: the party has not spoken directly on the matter and its position is inferred from what it has said on related topics. Of the 40 positions, 12 are estimated, seven of them on buying medicines.

SOMOS and Partido PAZ were registered in 2026, have no deputies and do not yet have an electoral platform: their positions come from their founding documents and are provisional until they register their platforms with the INE in January 2027.

The parties’ positions

For everyone or for those who have least

“Social programs should be aimed mainly at those who have least, rather than being for everyone.” This is the statement on the topic on which the parties agree most: six parties disagree, one is neutral and only one agrees. All positions have a source.

Against targeting, Morena’s 2024 platform promises to keep the programs, extend their benefits “to 100 percent of those who request inclusion” and turn them into “constitutional rights” (p. 19), although its motto is “for the good of all, the poor first” (p. 11). The PT voted 48 to 0 for the welfare amendment, and its program of action supports “the universal pension” for older adults (p. 14), although its platform also adopts the motto, which “prioritizes care for the most disadvantaged” (p. 36). The PVEM proposes a grant for all children aged 3 to 15 who are in school: “This support is for EVERYONE, without distinction” (2024 legislative agenda, p. 10).

Also against, from the opposition, the PRI proposes a minimum living income and says “this policy has to be universal, to prevent fraud” (program of action, p. 31); Movimiento Ciudadano, which voted for the amendment on the reserved articles as well, proposes “a universal pension system” and “universal access to health services” (2024 platform, p. 5), although it reserves direct cash transfers for “the poorest” (p. 74); and, outside the Chamber, Partido PAZ wants a social policy that guarantees “universally a minimum base of social welfare and not only targeted or segmented actions” (program of action, p. 5).

The PAN is neutral: its program of action says programs are needed “above all” for people at a disadvantage (p. 15), but its group voted for the amendment in general. SOMOS is the only one in favor: its program proposes expanding conditional transfers “ensuring that the funds reach those who need them most”, with a universal minimum per family (p. 47).

Who delivers the programs

“Social programs should be delivered through states and municipalities, not only directly by the federal government.” Today the main federal programs are paid directly to each person, mostly through Banco del Bienestar cards. Five parties support delivering them through states and municipalities as well, two are neutral and one is against.

The PRI is at the extreme: its program of action proposes that the registers of non-contributory pensions “as well as the disbursement of funds be done through the States and Municipalities”, with controls to prevent “electoral clienteles” (p. 48). Agreeing, short of the extreme:

• The PAN, which calls for the powers that most affect people to be assigned to “the levels of government closest to the community” (program of action, p. 14).
• Movimiento Ciudadano, which criticizes the programs being handed out by the so-called “servants of the nation” (2024 platform, p. 7) and calls itself “municipalist” (p. 60).
• The PT, a government ally, which proposes decentralizing to states and municipalities “most” of the functions and public services the federal government now provides “unnecessarily” (2024 platform, p. 15).
• Partido PAZ, which calls for “no more centralist public policies, but community building” (declaration of principles, p. 10).

Morena’s position, against, is estimated: its platform presents “the fight against third-party intermediation in social programs” as an achievement (p. 12), without mentioning states or municipalities. SOMOS is neutral with a source: it supports federalism, but for transfers it proposes a “unified national register” based on the CURP (program of action, p. 47). The PVEM’s neutral position is estimated.

Care at private clinics

“People without social security should be able to get care at private clinics paid for by the State when the public system cannot give them an appointment or medicines.” People without IMSS or ISSSTE coverage now use public services for the uninsured, run by IMSS-Bienestar in most states. Four parties agree, two are neutral and two disagree.

In favor, all four with a source: the PAN proposes guaranteeing care and medicines “through the promotion of public-private partnership models” (2024 platform, p. 176); the PRI, incentives for private investment in health and “public-private collaboration to guarantee” quality services (2024 platform, p. 37); Movimiento Ciudadano, “the regulated participation of the private sector as an alternative service provider” (2024 platform, p. 68); and SOMOS, agreed fees with private services so that “no one is left without care for lack of space” (program of action, p. 50).

Against, Morena proposes a “public, free, universal and comprehensive” system in which IMSS-Bienestar “will serve the entire population without social security” (2024 platform, p. 34), and the PT criticizes the “commodification of the right to health” and calls for a national system “with sufficient public funding” (2024 platform, pp. 28 and 31). Neither expressly rejects outsourcing to private providers, which is why neither is at the extreme. The PVEM is neutral with a source: its program proposes “government and private mechanisms” to create health centers, without mentioning paying private clinics. Partido PAZ’s neutral position is estimated.

Buying medicines

“The federal government should buy and distribute the medicines for all public health institutions.” Today medicines are bought by the IMSS, the ISSSTE, IMSS-Bienestar and state health services. This is the statement on the topic with the fewest sources: seven of the eight positions are estimated, because parties talk about supply, but rarely about who should buy.

Only one position has a source, in favor: the PAN proposes in its 2024 platform “a National Purchasing System” for supplies and medicines for the public health system, to take advantage of economies of scale (p. 178). The rest are estimated: Morena, agree, because of its commitment to an integrated national system; the PVEM, agree, because it calls for health strategies that “avoid the dispersion of bodies, their lack of coordination” (program of action, p. 8), although it does not say who should buy; the PT, Movimiento Ciudadano and Partido PAZ, neutral, because their documents call both for integrating services and for decentralizing; the PRI and SOMOS, disagree, because of their defense of federalism and, in SOMOS’s case, because its program wants municipalities to run primary health care (p. 50).

Vapes

“The sale of vapes and e-cigarettes should be banned.” Since January 2025 the Constitution has said the law “will punish any activity related to e-cigarettes, vapes and other similar systems or devices”, in the same paragraph as fentanyl and synthetic drugs (DOF, 17 January 2025), and in December 2025 the Chamber passed the amendment to the General Health Law banning their sale. Three parties support the ban, three are neutral and two oppose it.

Votes in general (Parliamentary Gazette, tabla1or1-43 and tabla2or1-75).

Morena and the PVEM voted for both and strongly agree. The PT voted for both as well, but on the law’s reserved articles, which limited the penalties to those who trade in vapes, not to users, it split: 13 in favor and 32 against (tabla2or1-76); that is why it agrees, short of the extreme. The PAN and the PRI voted for the constitutional amendment and against the law: they are neutral. Movimiento Ciudadano was the only group to vote against both, and its program of action calls for “cautious, gradual and evidence-based regulation” of some substances used for recreational or medicinal purposes (p. 12); it disagrees, short of the extreme, because both amendments included other matters, such as fentanyl in the constitutional one, and its program does not mention vapes. The positions of SOMOS (disagree, because it prefers regulating drugs to banning them) and Partido PAZ (neutral: it opposes addictions, but has not spoken on vapes) are estimated.

What divides the parties

There are no fixed blocs on this topic either. To compare the parties two by two, we add up the differences between their positions on the five statements (our own calculation; the maximum is 20; estimated positions count like the rest):

• Almost everyone wants programs for all. Only SOMOS supports targeting them, and the PAN is neutral. The welfare amendment was passed unanimously in general.
• What sets Morena apart from the rest is how programs are delivered and how health care works. Morena is the only party against delivering programs through states and municipalities (an estimated position) and, with the PT, the only one against the State paying private clinics.
• The PT, Morena’s ally, agrees with it on health care and parts ways on delivery: it wants it decentralized. Along with Movimiento Ciudadano, it is the party closest to PAZ on this topic (2 points apart), although three of PAZ’s five positions are estimated.
• The PAN, the PRI, Movimiento Ciudadano and SOMOS agree on opening health care to private providers. Vapes divide them: Movimiento Ciudadano opposes a ban, and so does SOMOS, by estimate; the PAN and the PRI are neutral.

The statements on this topic count towards your affinity with each party and also, when the reference parties give them a clear direction, toward the economic axis of the political compass, the left-right one.

Find out more

• All the statements on the topic, with their sources: “Health and social programs”. Afore pensions and the minimum wage are in “Work and pensions”.
• The parties’ positions on every statement in the test: party comparison. Compare two parties, for example Morena and the PT, Morena and the PRI or Movimiento Ciudadano and SOMOS.
• Other analyses by topic: “The parties and security”, “The parties and the judicial reform” and “Mexico’s parties and the United States”.
• Party profiles: Morena, PAN, PRI, PVEM, PT, Movimiento Ciudadano, SOMOS and PAZ.
• To find out which party you agree with most across all topics: take the test.