In response to a letter about the cost of single-payer healthcare (“Medicare for All cost said to be $32 trillion,” Jan. 27), polls show that many people are confused about what Medicare for all would cost. I hope that the following is helpful to the author and other readers.
The Mercatus Institute at George Mason University and the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst have published cost estimates of Sen. Bernie Sanders’ bill. Both studies were as conservative as possible. They project significant savings over 10 years, while covering an additional 28 million people and improving coverage for 32 million, eliminating co-pays and deductibles, and allowing complete choice of doctor and hospital.
Mercatus estimates that we will need $32 trillion of new tax dollars to replace insurance premiums and out-of-pocket payments like co-pays and deductibles. This may seem like a shocking amount of new taxes but total national health spending would still be $2 trillion less over the same period of time. The PERI group estimates we would save about $6 trillion.
Both studies show large administrative savings from simplified billing for doctors, global budgets for hospitals, savings from negotiations for better prices for drugs and equipment, and from the elimination of the administrative waste.
DR. JOHNATHON ROSS
Ottawa Hills
The writer is past president of Physicians for a National Health Program.
Display was wrong
Can anything be sadder or more ridiculous than watching our elected congresswomen dress up in white like high school sorority girls, wave and giggle like girls, and finally by their demeanor sit in disapproval of attempts to stop late term abortions. White for what?
ANNIE O’LEARY
Whitehouse
Red-lining effect
To understand contemporary America you must understand redlining ( “Decades-old ‘redlining’ affecting Toledo area,” Feb. 3).
I commend The Blade for shining a light on a topic that often gets less attention than it deserves. It is important for Americans to understand that our segregated neighborhoods are largely a result of governmental action made in the open. However, I believe in writing “Back then, African-Americans moving into a neighborhood tarnished its value,” The Blade fails to see one key supply and demand effect. As a result of fewer white neighborhoods that were available to black families, these families would have to have overpaid in order to move into a white neighborhood. This would serve to increase the property value of other homes in that neighborhood, which would counteract the decrease in demand brought on by racist whites who would not want to buy a home in a newly integrated neighborhood. Regardless, I hope to read more from The Blade on the subject of de jure segregation.
PATRICK MURRAY
Maumee
First Published February 9, 2019, 12:00 p.m.
