Medicare for All is a fallacy

ORDINARILY, I’m not one for watching political debates, let alone early-on primary ones.

I prefer perusing the résumés and actual accomplishments of those who want to govern. Debates merely show off arguing skills.

But I was in the mood for some comedy, so I watched. Much of the debate was about Medicare for All and, of course, open borders.

I have tremendous compassion for those in the US living in poverty, as well as for those fleeing other countries where the degrees of danger are unfathomable to us Americans.

But the ideas on display were laughable in their inability to address the primary economic elephants in the room: the insurance companies and the costs of all these pie-in-the-sky solutions. Precious little debate time was spent on the high profit margins vs. the low risks taken by the entirely clerical insurance companies.

Medicare for All is just not economically feasible — particularly with open borders, when it becomes Medicare for the Whole World! We already tried the Big Government way (Obamacare), and it imploded under skyrocketing premiums, deductibles and copays, with many medicines disallowed.

So we certainly do not need a Bigger Government solution. What we need is competition.

There is no reason in the world for individual states in America to have one or two health insurance options in 2019. It’s time to tear down those state walls and let insurance compete for our business. Why not have six or more insurers battle it out across every state with national health insurance plans in order to win customers?

If that works, maybe we will have a model to build upon that is economically viable for US taxpayers and those genuinely in need.

As for those on the debate stage, it’s time to brush up on Economics 101, because between Medicare for All and the Green New Deal, the country would be bankrupt in a few years.