Kudos for Dr. Donald Flory (in his Feb. 27 letter to the editor) for backing a plan the provides Medicare for All.
Although the idea was not originated by Sen. Harris, I'm glad to see it gaining momentum in larger groups that are realizing that a change is needed in our nation's healthcare system. He is correct that those who are fighting its implementation are those corporations who stand to lose the most – deep-pocketed insurance and pharmaceutical companies.
It has always amazed me how any insurance or pharmaceutical company whose CEO's salary is in the low- to mid- ten-figure salary range can justify how another human being should be denied affordable healthcare or life-changing or life-saving medication because the cost that they overinflate themselves may put a small ding in their bottom line. Could it be that they are afraid that any decline in profits might cause investors on Wall Street to maybe not invest money in their company and then maybe their ability to influence people on Capitol Hill would start to abate?
Why should the American public be so concerned about the viability of an industry that makes grossly huge profits off of the sick and elderly of our nation? I've argued this point many times with those that oppose a national healthcare plan that is cost free to the American public.
That is, if some income revenue in our government was shifted from an ever-widening black hole, i.e. the Pentagon, which can't account for millions of dollars in expenditures every year, to the Medicare program. It could be that boost to make the healthcare for all dream a reality.
Even if there were to be a minimal less than 2 percent tax hike on Medicare taxes to bolster and keep the Medicare program sustainable, it just might prove that there would be a greater savings to all that benefit from such a program. If you were to sit down and figure out how much you pay in insurance coverage plus prescription costs per month or per year, and figure in your out-of-pocket costs from any claim, even if it were a larger increase than 2 percent in Medicare payroll taxes, isn't there the smallest possibility that it would be cheaper for you in the long run?
The insurance companies are not in the business to give money away and with the way the pharmaceutical companies are manipulating patent laws to be able to charge outrageous profits for life-saving, life-changing medications, don't you think that now is the perfect time to start a serious discussion about Medicare for All?
People argue my point by saying that Medicare for All will just be another program for people to get something that they didn't work for or don't deserve. It frustrates me that people that oppose the Roe v. Wade ruling now truly believe that they are the ones who should determine what a person is deserving of in life. When did us mere mortals start believing that we are God? There is an old saying that goes: If you can't help someone, at least don't hurt them.