The U.S. should certainly be able to afford universal health care

A member of the audience holds up a placard supporting Medicare for all at a rally for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in Washington in September 2017. (Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images)

Regarding the Aug. 13 editorial “The $32.6 trillion doctor bill”:

The United States, among the richest countries in the world, can’t afford to do what every other major industrial democracy has managed to do. Add to that list Brunei, Slovenia, Israel, Antigua, Bhutan, Botswana and many others. How do they provide universal health care? Well, first of all they have per capita health-care costs far lower than ours. And why is that so? Politics. The people who profit from health care buy the laws that lock in outrageously high prices. We need cost reductions, not cost containment. The pigs at the trough will scream bloody murder, but, in the end, they will accept lower profits rather than close their doors and reduce their incomes to zero.

We can’t afford universal health care? Well, the bumblebee can’t fly, either.

Orin Hollander, Jamison, Pa.

In his refutation of some specific claims about the cost advantage of Medicare-for-all, Glenn Kessler may have given the misleading impression that universal health coverage is unavoidably expensive [“Democrats cherry-pick fact to tout Medicare-for-all,” The Fact Checker, Aug. 12]. He should have mentioned that the more comprehensive health-care systems of every other developed democracy cost from half to two-thirds what Americans pay — per person and as a portion of the economy — while producing better overall results in terms of lower juvenile mortality, longer life spans and better health outcomes in most regards.

The United States can do the same if the majority so desires, via universal Medicare or another scheme. If Australia, Britain and Denmark can do it, so can we.    

Gregory Paul, Baltimore