Given healthcare’s unsustainable cost trend, ‘Medicare for all’ is an attractive option

Regarding the Aug. 6 editorial “Paying for single-payer” (p. 26), the Medicare for all/single-payer discussion always goes the same way. Most acknowledge it would be less costly overall than the present system, but would cost the federal government far more. So it’s really a discussion about how to pay for that gap.

As an employer with nearly 500 covered lives including family members, I am certainly OK with a tax that is anything less than the more than 15% of payroll that the benefit costs us now. In fact, I would prefer an income-tax rider because unlike the benefit, we only pay taxes when we have the profit to do so.

I don’t believe the data show that utilization increases with coverage as critics assert, but even if it did, wouldn’t an improvement in population health offset that cost? As for reducing provider reimbursement, that might tend to force some providers to only offer the services they can perform profitably. This could lead to a “centers of excellence” model that improves quality at the cost of some patient inconvenience or travel. If some services become too scarce, then those rates will have to be raised.

There is little disagreement that the healthcare cost trajectory is unsustainable, so we will have to do something. “Medicare for all” appears to be an attractive option.

Ted Almon Chairman Claflin Co. Warwick, R.I.