‘Medicare for all’ is a loser
Letter to the editor:
In her USA TODAY column “Medicare for all is a winner for Democrats, as Ocasio-Cortez and others have shown,” Erica Payne argued that Democrats should endorse Medicare for all because “it’s more than just good policy. It’s good politics.” But wait until voters get a look at how much it would cost.
The Medicare for all plan championed by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., for instance, would increase federal health spending by $32 trillion over 10 years, according to the Urban Institute. When he ran for president, Sanders proposed paying for his plan by instituting a new 7.5 percent tax on employers, a new 4 percent tax on all households and significant tax hikes on the wealthy.
All those tax hikes would still raise less than half of what’s needed to pay for the plan. It’s hard to see how trillions of dollars in new taxes could possibly represent good policy — or good politics.