Shifting to single-payer health care would be a mess

Columnists, such as Eugene Robinson, have lately been picking up the Bernie Sanders program of "Medicare for All," which is a sanitized way of saying "single-payer" health insurance for all, without any choices.

While many critics are focusing on the cost of the program, which is substantial, there's also the question of what to do with the existing health care system.  Any changes to that, too, in the name of single-payer, are likely to be a mess.

What do you do with the millions of private health insurance employees who will lose jobs in the private sector?  What do you do with all their family members and those with other jobs that exist because of those jobs?

How do you handle the property values when those companies close and employees throughout the U.S lose their income because of single-payer?

What do you do for the states and cities that lose property taxes, income taxes, sales taxes, and all the other taxes and fees when so many private-sector companies lose their livelihood and the employees don't have money to buy stuff?

What do you do when private and public pensions lose hundreds of billions of dollars when stocks, bonds, and properties fall sharply or become worthless?

Do you think the Veterans Administration is run well?

Somehow, people seem to think Medicare and Medicaid have no limits, but there are all sorts of limits on what they pay.

If you want to cut costs of health care, get rid of many excessive mandates and regulations, open up the system to more competition instead of less, allow selling of insurance policies across state lines, and get tort reform.

Continually moving more of the control of our lives and money to the government is a huge mistake when we became the largest, greatest and most powerful country in the world because of freedom and capitalism, not government control.

If you experience technical problems, please write to