Health and social programs: what each party thinks

On social programs, the argument is not about whether they should exist. In October 2024 the amendment that turned universal benefits into constitutional rights won the votes of all six groups in the Chamber, governing and opposition alike. Today six parties reject reserving that support for the poorest households: the three coalition parties, Movimiento Ciudadano, the PRI, which proposes a basic living income for everyone, and PAZ, which calls for a universal floor of well-being. The PAN sits in the middle, between its program, which puts the disadvantaged first, and its 2024 vote. Only SOMOS, whose positions remain provisional until its 2027 platform, wants targeting, though with a universal floor for each family.

The dividing line lies in who provides the care. Letting someone without IMSS or ISSSTE coverage be treated at a private clinic paid with public money, when the public system offers no appointment, is an idea of the opposition and of SOMOS, and each frames it differently: bringing back Seguro Popular through public-private partnerships, encouraging private investment, admitting the private sector as a regulated provider, or setting agreed fees so no one goes without care. Morena and the PT disagree, betting on a fully public, free system led by IMSS-Bienestar. The PVEM's position is intermediate: it speaks of public and private mechanisms to open health centers, but not of paying clinics.

The ban on vapes sorts parties by intensity more than by bloc. Morena and the PVEM back it fully. The PT voted for the December 2025 law in general, but most of its group then rejected the changes to penalties, leaving it at "agrees". The PAN and the PRI supported writing the punishment into the Constitution in 2024 and in 2025 voted against the law that spells it out with fines and prison; hence their middle position.

On central purchasing of medicines almost everything is estimated; the exception is the PAN, which proposes a national purchasing system to gain economies of scale. And delivering programs through state and municipal governments has sourced support in both blocs, from the PRI, in strong agreement, to the PT, often with a warning that benefits must not be used to win votes. SOMOS is in the middle, preferring a single national registry tied to the CURP.