Medicare a Better Proposal than Mayo Clinic's
New York Times
Letters to the Editor
September 19, 2007
To the Editor
Re “Mayo Clinic Proposing a Universal Health Plan” ( Business Day, Sept. 15):
The Mayo Clinic proposal runs aground where most proposals for universal health care do — how to pay for it.
We have many urgent needs: to improve schools, make roads and bridges safe, meet the needs of veterans and their families. So there are no new sources of funding. “Taxes” is a dirty word, and proposals for subsidies and tax breaks would increase governmental deficits. They are nonstarters.
Our sole hope for funding is to make better use of over $2 trillion already being spent by business and governments. Medicare-for-all would save literally hundreds of billions of dollars on nonbenefit charges by simplifying the processing of billions of billings for insurers and health care providers.
Reducing provider conflicts of interest — which lead to enormous outlays determined by self-interest rather than health needs — could save billions more.
Medicare is marvelously efficient. We do not need to re-invent the wheel.
Merton C. Bernstein
St. Louis, Sept. 15, 2007
The writer served as principal consultant to the 1982-83 National Commission on Social Security Reform.