The May 2nd article in the Tribune by AP Reporters Richard Alonso-Zaldivar and Alan Fram showed the confusion about Medicare-For-All and Single Payer Systems. They are not the same thing but were used interchangeably in their writing. A Single Payer pays for everything not specifically covered such as an unnecessary cosmetic or hair transplant. Medicare-For-All pays a certain part but not all so insurance or the patient picks up the rest. The purpose of a Medicare Advantage insurance policy is to reduce the patient’s cost.

The critics that say such programs would delay non-emergency surgery is ridiculous because appointments quite often take two or three months with our current system. Critics cite some Canadians coming to American for surgery when they can’t get it in Canada. It’s almost always being done in Florida in January (Duh) or elective that the patient doesn’t want to wait their turn.

I think the Medicare plan is the least disruptive and still covers everyone. Employer insurance costs would be lessened and cover employee costs even with minimal plans. Medicaid would not be needed and healthcare costs would be reduced because we would not need thousands of people figuring out how to deal with so many different plans and companies. We currently spend almost a trillion on health insurance policies so most would not be needed. Both would mean no loss of coverage at 27 years old. The only doctors not involved would be those who do 100% concierge. Few people would go that way since it would be expensive. No person would go uncovered or have to declare bankruptcy because of medical care. It’s the number one reason for bankruptcy.

Why has stupidity and pride overruled commonsense for poor but costly medical care in the United States?