Joe Paduda considers what the libertarian vision on health care would look like in practice. Meanwhile, I'm all for incremental expansions of Medicare in theory, but folks should really be cognizant of the fact that such a strategy would do just about nothing to stop the system's explosive, destructive cost-growth. Five years down the line, when Medicare's even more in the red than it is now, and the whole system is all the more unaffordable, will calls for more government involvement go over well? How do you answer the "We gave you your Medicare change, and now we're six gazillion dollars in debt?" charge?
Maybe there's an easy reply. I don't know. But it seems a little dangerous -- and not much more politically achievable than some of the presidential plans that would actually fix the system. As a general rule, if you can see how your policy is step one on the road to Awesome Collectivist Utopia, the relevant industries and interest groups are going to notice too. And they're going to fight. Given that reality, I don't totally understand the case for incrementalism vs. full-scale reform. If you want Medicare-for-All, like, follow your bliss, man. But simply dropping Medicare eligibility to 55 seems all downsides without the relevant improvements.
