Stories in the Gazette in recent months frequently include accounts of override votes in various towns and cities to cover escalating costs, and every case cites increases in health coverage, typically 10% to 20% annually, but in some cases exceeding 40%. These increased costs force municipalities to gut services to their citizens, including our most vulnerable populations, as they transfer our wealth to the insurance corporations.
The alternative to the hollowing out of our communities has been adopted by every developed country except the U.S.: universal healthcare. This is the system that is advocated by our current Sen. Ed Markey, a true progressive who tirelessly advocates for policies that promote economic justice, equity, and the well being of the people of the commonwealth. Multiple studies and analyses show “single payer healthcare” would lower healthcare costs and improve outcomes. In contrast, Ed’s opponent, Seth Moulton advocates for a “public option,” a variation of the current profit-driven “pay or die” system of healthcare in which the insurance industry does not actually provide any care, but instead maximizes profits by denying benefits. The public option might blunt the meteoric increases in insurance costs that are currently laying waste to our communities, but costs would still increase, services would continue to stagnate, and the insurance industry that brought this down on us in the first place would still be in the driver’s seat. The only disadvantage of universal healthcare is the inconvenience to the CEOs and shareholders in the insurance industry, and the politicians who are bankrolled by them, like Seth Moulton.
Dave King
Amherst