Dreaming of a state-run single-payer healthcare system? Want universal healthcare for all Americans? Supporters say Medicare for all is the answer.

The deceptive letter from Lauren Crawford Shaver, executive director of Partnership for America's Health Care Future, was pure propaganda from the usual suspects, hiding behind a neutral sounding title (“The more Americans learn about 'Medicare for All,' the less they like it,” May 1).

It's too bad The Sun failed to identify this group for what OpenSecrets.org reveals it is, a front representing major insurance companies, big Pharma and private hospitals who are part of a major industry effort to kill the Medicare for All movement.


These are the same self-interested actors who have defeated efforts for a universal public health care system in this country since those big socialist radicals, Presidents Harry Truman and Richard Nixon, proposed it during their respective times in office.

The partnership is part of a highly organized, massively funded national effort by entrenched big business interests to defeat any universal health care program that would cost their members money. According to OpenSecrets.org, those entrenched interests spent a combined $143 million lobbying in 2018.

On it's face, Ms. Shaver's points are ludicrous. A single health care system is the only idea that makes sense. Instead of depending on employers to provide most health insurance, while facing rising co-pays, premiums and soaring deductibles, Medicare for All would eliminate all of that while being paid for with income or payroll taxes we all pay.

Instead of having insurance companies dictate what they won't cover to boost their profit margins, Medicare for All would return those decisions to doctors and patients, just as in every other developed, industrialized nation in the world. If these single-payer systems are so horrible, why is it that not one of those nations that has one is moving to get rid of it?

Even more important is that the future of effective health care is in prevention and gene analysis that can prevent chronic illnesses, while our dysfunctional current patchwork of plans is based on treating people after they become sick, which is much more expensive.

I hope in the future The Sun will at least take a minute to Google the authors of such letters and at least advise readers of their true nature.

Larry Carson, Columbia