Medicare coverage for all

By Thomas Clairmont, M.D. (Portsmouth, N.H.), Letters, Jan. 13, 2017

Your editorial on Jan. 9 stated "There is no health-care reform that will lower premiums, cut deductibles and increase choice all at the same time."

That is totally untrue and it is embarrassing that such tripe should be presented to the public who are overpaying and underutilizing health care services.

Expansion of Medicare to cover every citizen comprehensively, equitably, affordably, with a lifetime portable policy, does indeed lower premiums, eliminates deductibles, and offers full choice of your doctor and hospital. In fact, no other plan can work. Every major country provides full lifetime coverage to all of their citizens at less than half of what we are paying in the United States. None permit the price gouging occurring today. None have bankruptcy related to medical care.

There are several plans readily available for review. Senator Sanders, who won 22 states and might have won if not for the chicanery of the DNC, presented his plan night after night to rousing audiences. You can read his ideas on his website or in his new book "Our Revolution." University of Massachusetts Economics Professor Friedman argues that "Medicare for All saves billions." Physicians for a National Health Program have their ideas encapsulated in HR 676. Every plan includes you fully for life and includes dental health and mental health and prescriptions.

Why hasn't the media presented these ideas for your consideration?

Why do Democrats and Republicans oppose full coverage for all of their constituents?

Why wouldn't you want to have a plan that costs less than 10 percent of your income for total coverage that is permanent?

Health care and its costs are on the minds of every citizen almost every day. Expanding Medicare to cover all of you makes sense to me. Apparently not doing it makes cent$ for those who don't. What other reason is their opposition?

Dr. Thomas Clairmont resides in Portsmouth.