Dear editor,

Your recent contributor gave a well thought out discussion at length regarding socialism.

I am not a big one for labels but recently I sent some information to several friends regarding “Medicare For All.”

They were ideas I found from business writer David Lazarus in another daily newspaper.

I found the article enlightening for a couple of reasons, Lazarus outlines one of the accepted price tags on Medicare For All.

He wrote that this was $32 trillion over ten years.

That makes people nervous and inclined to scream “socialism!”

That would seem like a huge amount when compared to zero.

Currently, however, Lazarus reported that we are spending $ 3.6 trillion a year on healthcare.

What do we call that? Socialism? Something else? Do the math.

That is $ 36 trillion over ten years.

Unfortunately, Lazarus continues and writes that this total will soon be increasing to as much as $ 4.8 trillion a year.

As an honest writer, I would have to point out that the $ 32 trillion may also likely rise to some extent.

Trying to remember, now, the early goals of the Affordable Healthcare Act - to provide as many people as possible with healthcare and do so smartly with cost containment.

I don’t think we gave it enough time to achieve the fiscal goal.

Being impatient hurt our chances to achieve either goal.

Maybe it was less impatience and more plain old fashioned politics.

One of my friends correctly pointed out that Medicare For All would surrender more control to the government and I accepted that as a good response and worthy to consider.

But, instead of calling this socialism as if we would be doing something socialist for the first time we could also just call it pragmatic if it shows to be less costly.

Then the only other question would be whether the medical care suffered.

For the record, I prefer the candidates who allow for Medicare For All and the option of keeping what you currently like.

Yes, a pragmatist who wants it all!

Scott Hamre, Cherry Valley


More from this section

(2) comments


"For the record, I prefer the candidates who allow for Medicare For All and the option of keeping what you currently like."

Hmmmm... Now where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, when the ACA was passed. Of course that was actually a lie, wasn't it? And my health care premiums increased almost 400% in just 4 years after the ACA passed, AND my benefits went down. Sorry, there is nothing the government can do cheaper and more efficiently than the private sector.


Absolutely on target, Scott. You and I support the plan being proposed by Vice President Biden and many other Democrats: If you have what you consider satisfactory health care coverage...and millions of Americans have worked hard to earn can keep it. If your coverage is unsatisfactory or if you don't have any health care protection at all, you can sign up for the Public Option (Medicare). That way, we truly have health care for all. That's not socialism; it's common sense and the decent thing to do.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.