To the Editor:

It even sounds praiseworthy to have such a magnanimous goal in mind … to provide “Medicare For All.” With such a socially and morally laudable concept (to insure everyone under the same plan), what kind of person would be emotionally bankrupt to be against it?

But, hold your horses for just a wee bit here, folks. Medicare For All does not equate with ready access to first-class medical care and medicine.

When you take a finite number of hospital beds, nurses, doctors, medical technicians and medical technology, there are going to be rationing of access to all of these medical providers. Why would you need to ration? Simple: (1) many more people will have coverage, and (2) the number of hours in a day is still 24 and days in a week is still seven.

Your doctor’s appointment book will rapidly fill up, and you won’t be able to get an appointment for months, no matter how urgent your need.

When you then say to these hospitals, doctors, nurses, medical technicians and inventors of new medicines and technology that these medical providers will only get reimbursed at a rate controlled by the government, these same medical professionals will either go out of business, as their expenses are too great for Medicare reimbursement rates to make them whole or the available pool of medical professionals will shrink rapidly as smart professionals will quit the profession to seek other avenues to make more money.

Thus, our first-class quality American medicine will disappear.

Politicos and pundits, whatever their politics or persuasion are, haven’t a clue how to debate, discuss or explain what an American medical system would look like should the voters decide to push for this feel good concept of Medicare For All.

Hey folks: I’m on Medicare and it doesn’t cover most of my medical expenses. Go to the Medicare site and research what they will and won’t cover under Medicare Part A, B, D, etc. To get coverage for the most common medical expenses, I purchased a separate insurance policy that supplements the significant gaps in Medicare coverage.

So, when you take 150 million working class people off their employer-provided health insurance (you know, the employer who pays for the largest percentage of the premiums for the insurance coverage), those people will have to significantly adjust their household budget to pay for this new Medicare For All concept.

Sorry, people, despite what some “talking heads” want you to believe, medical coverage is not “free stuff.” The entire American populace is going to have to work to pay the taxes to support this not-so-free stuff.

And the current estimate is ranging from 60 percent to 80 percent of your household income. Hey, citizen: How are you going to adjust your household budget when the government grabs most of it?

How quickly will you develop an attitude about that government grab that leaves you destitute?

Joan Liska, Middletown