Advertisement
Opinion

Letters to the Editor: It isn’t selfishness that makes people oppose single-payer. It’s common sense

Rally
Supporters of “Medicare for all” in Fort Lauderdale, Fla.
(Joe Raedle / Getty Images)

To the editor: David Lazarus left out an important factor in considering whether to support single-payer healthcare: self-care.

If people, including the parents of young children, do not take care of themselves and instead indulge in drugs, alcohol, dangerous activities, behavior that leads to obesity and more, which they are entitled to do, why should I pay for that behavior and the predicable consequences?

The traditional American ideal of self-determination is giving way to a national safety net under everybody. You know what that is called.

Don’t confuse common sense with “selfishness.”

Advertisement

Jerry Hawk, San Marino

..

To the editor: I agree that “Medicare for all” might work better than our current system, but there is no guarantee. Government seems to work better when it collects and disperses money (Social Security) than when it provides a service (the DMV).

Moving toward the German model of universal healthcare is certainly better than adopting a nationalized system as in Great Britain. However, it lacks the benefits of Medicare Advantage, which is already in full use in this country.

Advertisement

Medicare Advantage employs for-profit insurance companies, which induces some competition but puts a lid on profit as a percentage of premium revenue. Utilizing a system that is already in place would certainly ease some of the issues of transforming from our current system to one with more government control.

I believe that if you start with the objective of providing quality affordable healthcare to everybody rather than establishing a single-payer system, you might yield better results.

Kevin Minihan, Los Angeles

..

To the editor: Everyone should read Lazarus’ column and see how easy it is to explain what single-payer would be. For the consumer, what could be better and easier than to pay on a progressive scale for our health insurance, just as we do with our taxes?

With single-payer, there would be no premiums, no deductibles or other similar costs. There would be no fear of an out-of-network charge putting you in financial jeopardy.

In what kind of society do we want to live? A healthier population free from the stress of our current insurance system would be more productive, less stressed and, who knows, possibly more law-abiding.

Diane Welch, Cypress


Newsletter
A cure for the common opinion

Get thought-provoking perspectives with our weekly newsletter.

You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
Advertisement