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