SoylentNews

AnonTechie [soylentnews.org] writes:

There is an instinct among political pundits to confuse caution for practicality — an assumption that those who advocate for incremental change are being reasonable, while those pushing for bold reforms aren’t. This is seen most starkly in the debate around health care reform, despite the fact that the “practical” pushers of limited reform fail to address the real problems in our health care system.

We all recognize that the status quo isn’t working. We spend more per person [healthsystemtracker.org] than any other country on health care, but we aren’t getting any bang for our buck. We have lower life expectancy [healthsystemtracker.org], higher infant mortality rates [healthsystemtracker.org]infant mortality rates and more preventable deaths [healthsystemtracker.org], and too many personal bankruptcies [kff.org] are due at least in part to medical bills.

Time to get real. As an economist who has spent decades studying our health care system, I (Gerald Friedman) can tell you that Medicare for All advocates are the only ones who are being reasonable, because theirs is the only plan that will control health care costs while finally achieving universal coverage.

According to Gerald Friedman, a health care and labour economist, who is an economics professor at University of Massachusetts Amherst and the director of The Hopbrook Institute [hopbrook-institute.org]: Is Medicare for All bold? Absolutely. Is it reasonable? You bet. It is time to accept that Medicare for All is the practical alternative.

Medicare For All [usatoday.com]

[Related]:
Democrats' promise of Medicare for All is remarkably misguided and unrealistic [usatoday.com]

Trump wants to drop a neutron bomb on Obamacare. Over to you, 2020 voters. [usatoday.com]

Take it from me, tweaks won't fix health care. Dems should focus on Medicare for All. [usatoday.com]

Original Submission