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.