Summaries and Critique Rough Draft
Last Name 1
Name
Dr. Frye
EH 102
September 10, 2017
Medicare for All Isn’t Rocket Science
Summary of Article One
“It’s time for Medicare for all”, an article posted on The Baltimore Sun by former United
States Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, urges Democratic Americans to take a stand in favor of
universal access to healthcare. Published on July 27, 2017, Reich compiles evidence to support
his notion that the United States is facing a major healthcare crisis. One considerable argument
he makes is that America, despite being a large, prosperous country, falls behind other nations,
particularly France, in providing adequate health coverage for their citizens, using figures such
as prices for various medical procedures that are more expensive to perform in the States versus
in France. Reich also mentions that insurance companies in America are largely to blame for the
nation’s skyrocketing health premiums, calling them out for raising premiums due to the intake
of costly patients. As a solution, Reich proposes a sort of payroll tax, suggesting that wealthy
Americans should pay more into the tax than those who are poor, thus causing health care costs
to be much lower, benefitting everyone. He explains that this system would be structured exactly
the same as Medicare currently is. While many House Democrats are calling for Medicare for
all, Reich feels as though all Democrats are not taking this issue as seriously as it needs to be.
Reich concludes his article by issuing a stern warning to Democrats, urging them to not only
protect the Affordable Care Act, but to advocate for Medicare for all.
Summary of Article Two
Last Name 2
“Medicare for all? A non-solution to a non-problem”, an article posted on Tulsa World by
Robert Graboyes, a Senior Research Fellow and Health Care Scholar with George Mason
University, argues that the United States’ GDP, or gross domestic product, is determined by
many more factors than just healthcare and that instating Medicare for all would not greatly
affect it. Published on August 28, 2017, Graboyes claims that the GDP is a “stilted measure”,
saying that it measures what a population produces, not what they do with that production. He
recognizes that most of the GDP is spent on things such as food, vacations and education, not
healthcare. In fact, he claims that the healthcare to individual ratio is barely higher than other
developed countries. His second major claim against universal healthcare states that America
spends more on healthcare than other countries because America is a wealthy country. To
support this, Graboyes points out than American citizens have a high standard of living, which
calls for higher-quality healthcare, including advanced medical technology and short wait times.
According to Graboyes, Medicare for all would not improve these factors because Americans
would not be content with anything lower than the quality of healthcare that they already receive.
Graboyes concludes his article with a final allegation that expresses “faith against logic” that
European healthcare should influence Americans to consume like Europeans. A major point in
the universal healthcare debate is the success of the European healthcare systems, such as in
France, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, which Graboyes suggests is impractical for reasons
not explicitly mentioned.
Critique
The fight for universal access to healthcare, better known as Medicare for all, has been
circulating the Senate floor, the media and basic political conversation for decades. Health
insurance in the United States is expensive and if you can’t afford it, you probably don’t consider
Last Name 3
visiting a doctor even when you may need to. For example, I am one of the thousands of
Americans without health insurance. This means that I cannot afford the medication I have been
prescribed, specialists or surgery. Most doctors have switched to insurance-only patients, which
only limits my resources further. There are people in this country who need life-saving
procedures done, but cannot afford them. People are dying in this country because our
government cannot come to a sound conclusion. “Medicare for all? A non-solution to a non-
problem”, an article by Robert Graboyes, suggests that there is no, and has never been, a
healthcare crisis in America. Graboyes’ provides a flawed claim that Medicare for all is a
pointless idea because the arguments he presents are baseless and ridiculous.
Graboyes claims that the American GDP, or gross domestic product, plays a large role in
the argument against Medicare for all. His reasoning behind this statement, however, does
nothing to support his cause. For example, Graboyes states that “the GDP is a stilted measure.”
He does practically nothing to validate this statement. Instead of explaining how the United
States’ finances are possibly a mistake measure to judge the quality of American healthcare, he
cites his own 1994 article, which describes “[the GDP]’s utter failure to capture quality
differentials in health care”. First, 1994 was twenty-three years ago and the state of the United
States’ economy changes daily. This data is absolutely irrelevant at this point. Moreover, his
claim is ludicrous, not only because it is outdated, but because it presents an argument that has
no business being an argument since healthcare clearly does impact the economy. If anything,
Medicare for all would actually help the economy. Here's why: In Robert Reich’s article “It’s
time for Medicare for all”, Reich points out that Americans pay “more than twice the average in
the world’s 35 advanced economies.” With medicare for all, Americans could spend that money
elsewhere, thus helping the economy grow. Graboyes may argue that Americans don’t spend
Last Name 4
more than other countries individually but on net, we clearly do spend more. Not only that, but it
negatively effects the economy since people spend so much on their medical bills that they
cannot spend elsewhere. Thus, his claim that GDP shows that Medicare for all is unnecessary
completely fails.
Moreover, the second part of Graboyes’ article also fails when he focuses on the
American demand for high quality goods and services and the supposed fact that initiating
Medicare for all would cause an uproar because healthcare would not be up-to-standard. In
reality, citizens in other developed countries have a high standard of living as well and also
receive high quality healthcare. In France, they cover all of their citizens, which, according to
Robert Reich, “gives them a lot of bargaining power”. By this, Reich states that the French are
able to provide quality health insurance for their citizens because they affectively negotiate
prices with insurance providers. While the United States has a much higher GDP due to a much
larger population, we provide a much lower quality of care for our citizens, so Graboyes’
argument is already invalid. More confusingly, he tries to claim that healthcare is a “superior
good” that Americans spend more on the wealthier they are. Essentially, he equates healthcare
and things like “vacations and education” in order to claim that Americans will always want
something better when they are wealthier. Thus, he believes, “If America shifted tomorrow to
Medicare for All…[t]here’s no reason to believe this shift would make Americans more content
with lower tech or longer wait times.” This is a strange argument to make in the first place. He
seems to suggest that by necessity Medicare for All would change the healthcare technology we
have in place, which makes no sense. There is quality healthcare available in Canada and France,
and while yes, there can be wait times. Americans also wait now. There are wait times at
doctor’s offices or specialty doctors. I once tried to make an appointment with my GP and was
Last Name 5
told he couldn’t see me for two weeks. Thus, his argument that Americans will reject Medicare
for All due to quality falters. His comparisons do not work (healthcare is a very different from
going on vacation to the Bahamas), and he ignores the reality of the system we currently suffer
under. Over here in the States, the insurance companies practically run the show and patients
without insurance generally don’t get care. Thus, the system here does not insure high quality
care for all. Instead, it insures good care for only the wealthy. Graboyes argues that the U.S.
would no longer have high-quality healthcare. However, when other developed countries are
charging far less for health coverage and having great results, it might be time for us to do the
same.
With all that being said, I do understand Graboyes’ claim that the medicare program can
be bloated and there are dangers of costs running out of hand. He says, “Empower Medicare to
negotiate directly with drug manufacturers and the likeliest outcome would be undue influence
for the health care industry, resulting in something like the Defense Department’s $2,228
monkey wrench circa-1980 ($6,600 in 2017 dollars).” There is certainly a danger of companies
taking advantage of the new system and forcing the higher cost on everyone. Our current system
shows just that; if you look at any hospital bill, you will see wildly overpriced items. My mother
was charged $150 for a single ibprofin pill, for example. This is always a danger no matter who
is bargaining, and Graboyes is right to point out this issue. However, it is not one that is
insurmountable. Again, we have models from other countries where rates have been kept low.
The fact that Medicare for All faces the same danger we already have in our current system is not
enough of an argument to support why we should not implement it.
Robert Graboyes’ article has convinced me that, no matter what, someone will always
argue against the greater good of the nation, even if their argument does not make sense. If the
Last Name 6
European healthcare system was such an awful thing, it would not warrant such impeccable
results. I understand that the United States have long been a country of innovation, but
sometimes, it’s okay to need a little help. Medicare for all would be a huge step in the right
direction towards a stable economy and a happy population. Less people would die from
perfectly treatable ailments and the economy would benefit from the taxes received through
Medicare. I am still heavily convinced that healthcare is right and not a privilege. Healthcare is
not rocket science, people.
Last Name 7
Works Cited
Graboyes, Robert. “Robert Graboyes: Medicare for All? A Non-Solution to a Non-Problem”.
Tulsa World, BLOX Content Management System, 08/28/2017,
http://www.tulsaworld.com/opinion/opinionfeatured/robert-graboyes-medicare-for-alll-a-
non-solution-to-a/article_3ff4d0be-7564-51d7-988e-b0737060f752.html. Accessed on
08/30/2017.
Reich, Robert. “Reich: It’s Time for Medicare for All”. The Baltimore Sun, Baltimore Sun Media
Group, 07/12/2017, http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-op-0712-
online-exclusive-20170711-story.html. Accessed on 08/30/2017.