Medicare for All a good idea
Two words that are commonly thrown around and assumed to be understood is liberal and conservative. On my internet search, I entered Liberal vs Conservative and the first entry, wp.lps.org, gave some good definitions of the two and how they relate to the issues in an easily understood format.
Liberals generally believe in governmental action to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all, and that it is the duty of the government to reduce community issues and to protect civil liberties and individual human rights. Conservatives generally believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values and strong national defense. On the political spectrum, liberals are usually referred to as Democrats on the left and conservatives are usually referred to as Republicans on the right.
On health care, clear differences are seen. Liberals support universal government-supervised health care. There are millions of Americans who cannot afford health insurance. They are being deprived of a basic right to health care. Conservatives believe free health care provided by the government (socialized medicine) means that everyone will get the same poor-quality health care while the rich will pay for superior health care. Health care should remain privatized and they support health care spending accounts.
Therefore, on Medicare for All (MA), a single-payer, government-controlled healthcare plan, this would be a pretty decisive opposition between liberals (for) and conservatives (against). This liberal Democrat is for MA which I will justify for the rest of this letter.
Although there are only two current bills: S1129 by Sanders and HR1384 by Jayapal, there are other ones available to be considered. For most and, possibly all of them, secondary insurance would be eliminated thus eliminating the hassle and problems of buying this with the current Medicare setup.
Long-term health care and all citizens would be included; there are no plans to shortcut the formally eligible seniors in any way. Sander’s plan would take four years to implement and children under 18 would be included the first year. (healthcare.com)
It is true that people who have never paid into it and will now pay into it through taxes will receive the same benefits as people, like me, who have paid into it for years. As a liberal Democrat, I believe health care is a right for all and not just a privilege few; for what possible moral reason would justify prohibiting these people from participating simply because they did not have a past opportunity to participate? (cnn.com)
Concerning illegal aliens, 53-55% of them are already insured. The case for expanding their healthcare access rests on financial, public health, and moral arguments. This won’t be an easy problem to solve but it does not, on its own, justify them not receiving MA benefits. (theatlantic.com)
Fortunately, universal health care has already been set up in Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom and we rank last on, “…measures of quality, efficiency, access to care, equity, and the ability to lead, long healthy and productive lives…”, and ours is, “…far more expensive.” We would be wise to study these systems to see what works and what doesn’t work. If we approach MA with a right/wrong, it’s wrong and no-middle-ground attitude then, yes, MA has no possibility of reaching its potential in solving our healthcare problems. (healthcare.com)
Larry Farr, Jeffersonville