Thinking About A Single-Payer System: Pros And Cons Of ‘Medicare For All’
Opinion writers communicate their takes on the health care plan advanced by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).
Boston Globe:
The Benefits Of Bernie Sanders’ ‘Medicare For All’ Plan
Bernie Sanders is right. Given the growing costs and shrinking benefits of Obamacare, and the flame-out of “repeal and replace,” America should transition to Medicare for All. (Marcia Angell, 9/21)
USA Today:
Bernie Sanders Medicare-For-All Plan Is All Wrong For America
My 93-year-old father recently came home from the hospital proudly harboring a life-saving $50,000 aortic valve paid for by Medicare, though he rode home in a wheelchair that Medicare didn’t pay for. This gap in services is growing, as Medicare struggles to cover emerging technologies that are not one-size-fits all while at the same time continuing to provide basic care. If Medicare is converted to single-payer or Medicare for all, as Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont proposes, tens of millions more patients will be added to an already faltering system, and the gap between the promise of care and actual care delivered will widen. (Marc Siegel, 9/20)
Cleveland Plain Dealer:
Single-Payer Health Care - Its Time Has Come
Recently, President Donald Trump warned Republican senators that they must do something or be confronted with the dangers of "single-payer" health care. But, single-payer shouldn't be the boogeyman -- its time has come. (Mark Dimondstein, 9/20)
Los Angeles Times:
There Are 3 Types Of Single-Payer 'concern Trolls' — And They All Want To Undermine Universal Healthcare
Some of the naysayers are conservatives who simply abhor “big government.” Some have perfectly valid reasons to question the merits of single payer in general or Sanders’ methods in particular. Yet others claim they support universal healthcare in theory (one day, perhaps) but cannot do so now because of a “concern.” They are “concern trolls” — broadly defined as “a person who disingenuously expresses concern about an issue with the intention of undermining or derailing genuine discussion.” (Adam H. Johnson, 9/21)
