18 MAR 2020 Note: People are right about how the COVID–19 pandemic shows us how important universal healthcare is, but Medicare-For-All may not be the best plan. South Korea is current winning the fight against this outbreak, and Tulsi Gabbard’s National Health Insurance plan is actually structured most like theirs.
Both presidents Obama and Trump promised us Universal Healthcare, but failed to deliver. Universal Healthcare is once again on the table, and Tulsi Gabbard’s plan is superior to all the rest… not just because she is modeling hers after existing universal healthcare programs that have proven to work in other liberal democracies around the world (like Australia and the UK), but also because she actually has a plan to pay for it.
When defending Tulsi Gabbard’s Single-Payer-Plus Universal Healthcare Plan (TulsiCare), there are really only three things that we need to keep in mind. The rest of it is just noise and irrelevant nonsense that we shouldn’t bother with.
And for the sake of argument, let’s pretend that what Medicare-for-All advocates are saying about dead bodies is true. Let’s pretend that their numbers are accurate, and that there are tens of thousands of people who die every year because they don’t have health insurance.
1. TulsiCare expands Medicare coverage to every single American.
Like Bernie and Warren’s Medicare-for-All, TulsiCare expands government healthcare coverage to every single American. Nobody gets left behind. The plan Bernie and Warren are advocating for wouldn’t save any more lives than Tulsi’s would. TulsiCare saves lives, too.
2. TulsiCare is constitutional.
Tulsi’s plan has a better chance of actually becoming a reality, because it is constitutional. Bernie and Warren’s Medicare-for-All may not be. Their plan calls for abolishing private health insurance, in whole or in part. And the only way they can make that happen, is if they alter the constitution or get a Supreme Court ruling that would redefine the constitution in ways that remove protections for private property and free enterprise. The latter is not something I would like to see happen, and I think many would agree.
3. Why should we give up some of our freedoms, when we don’t have to?
Neo-progressives have created a false dilemma, leading many to believe that we must give up some of our freedoms in order to save lives. They’ve done so, because healthcare is not their primary goal. The constitutional changes required to abolish private health insurance would also empower the government to seize the means of production. The debate about private health insurance isn’t really about healthcare — it is a sneaky referendum for abolishing free-market capitalism.
TulsiCare saves lives, without our having to sacrifice any of our constitutional freedoms. Some may not appreciate our freedoms, but I do. And there is nothing anyone can say to change my mind. I’m voting for Tulsi… because America is a free country, and I trust President Gabbard to keep it that way.