thepoliblog

Healthcare For All versus Medicare for All

U.S. Air Force surgeons Dr. Patrick Miller (left), Dr. Michael Hughes (right), and surgical technician SrA Ray Wilson from the 379th Expeditionary Medical Squadron, repair the ruptured achilles tendon of a servicemember on March 11, 2003. The doctors are performing this surgey at a field hospital in a forward-deployed location.

For people who are currently satisfied with their health insurance, forcing them to replace their insurance by Medicare would be a coercive version of Health Care For All. A non-coercive Health Care For All would include the option of private insurance.

People who are currently satisfied with their health insurance are numerous, and a larger percentage of them vote than do those in the general population.

For this large bloc of people, insisting upon Medicare For All would be a show-stopper, in the sense that these people (myself included) cannot vote for any candidate who insists on Medicare For All, no matter how many other good positions are espoused by that candidate.

By insisting upon Medicare For All, a candidate needlessly loses a very significant number of votes.