FORMATSBACK
THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO SIDES TO EVERY STORY
THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO SIDES TO EVERY STORYMedicare for all would give the US population significantly better healthcare than they have now, argues Helaine Olen of the Sun Sentinel. Growingly popular with Americans, the program would tackle the country’s overpriced and ineffective healthcare structure. Other developed countries use this system and do better in both of those regards. In the US, poor people suffer from this immensely, as they are unable to pay for essential care. The American healthcare debate is poisoned by lobbyists from the highly profitable healthcare industry. It has much to gain from the current system that facilitates immensely high prices.
Keep on reading at the Sun SentinelThe US would be worse off with a Medicare-for-all system, holds Deane Waldman of The Hill. While some polls suggest most Americans support its implementation, these stances change once they are made to understand what this process involves. The cost of $18 trillion stands out. It’s simply not cost-effective. Already, the Medicare Trust Fund is set to run out of money in the next decade. A national single-payer healthcare system would decide each state’s biggest budget expense for them. Additionally, such a system would worsen the care that patients get, imposing one treatment for all, even if it’s inadequate.
Keep on reading at The Hill