Regarding “Reforming antiquated medical-coverage system would save lives — and money” (Jan. 13): You state that the solutions to the enormous costs of commercial health business practices should be both ethical and economic. Recent studies on the economics of health care delivery confirm the same results, as do other studies performed since the early 1990s: The U.S. spends more per capita on health care than any other country, yet only some Americans have guaranteed care.
The most fiscally conservative and fair way to deliver health care to everyone is through one universal, single-payer program, in which health care is allocated according to medical need. The net savings to taxpayers would be substantial. A program having one simple, single bill, with no unreimbursed care, would enable hospitals, clinics and care centers to thrive and compete using quality measures. If the primary goal is to find the economic solution, why do we keep looking for a different one? We repeatedly study this, when the answer has been clear and evident.
If we are serious about ethics, why do we ration care according to the perceived socioeconomic value of some of our people? There must be one excellent standard of care for everyone.
Every other developed country and many poor countries guarantee the right to health care for all their people. Americans, too, can have the health security we all need if we demand it.
In a democratic society such as ours, the people must lead, and the politicians must follow. It is our duty to lead, so that every child can grow up in a society that nurtures and values everyone’s health.
Mimi Signor, registered nurse • University City
Views from the editorial board, opinions from guest and national columnists plus the latest letters from our readers.