Wednesday, August 3, 2022 A4 OPINION VOICE of the CHIEFTAIN Voters want results from their elected oïcials O ur elected leaders on both sides of the aisle politi- cally need to do much more to realign themselves with the mid- dle ground of America and shun the high-powered rhetoric and shouts of the lunatic fringe. True, everyone in our great nation has the right to express an opin- ion, and that right is a sacred one that must be guarded. However, during the past decade it seems those who sit on the opposite poles of the right and left have gained new prominence, their voices louder, their dogma more militant. In the Oregon Legislature there is a clear divide between Democrats and Republicans with the GOP vastly out- numbered and relegated to an inefec- tive minority. The state assembly polit- ical roster mirrors our own national stage politics in the sense there appar- ently exists a wide gulf between what each side desires. In Oregon, the majority Democrats have the power and use it in ways lawmakers believe their constituents want. Usually, when major political con- nicts erupt, Republican lawmakers face few alternatives other than simply leaving the building to erase a quorum needed for votes. That means, essentially, that on really critical issues, the normal dis- course needed by a democracy to suc- ceed breaks down. One side gains the advantage, or in Oregon9s case at times, one side is left standing alone on the dance noor while the other is long gone. What those types of actions accom- plish is to create a wider dissatisfac- tion that continues to grow. Oregonians have shown in polls they want more out of this year9s gubernatorial race than the usual name-calling added to a good dose of fear-mongering from the far edges of both parties. Voters don9t want more oghting. They want results. Therein lies the problem. Because results are not being measured 4 either here at home or on the national political stage 4 by practicable results but instead by which part of the far left or right can gain ascendency. Our elected lawmakers on both sides of the political fence need to begin to work together and to develop concrete solutions to diïcult prob- lems. Calling Democrats liberals bent on destroying the republic and Repub- licans as people who want to create some kind of Handmaid9s Tale sys- tem is not only ludicrous but prevents problem-solving and creates more turmoil. The future of our nation and state rests on our lawmakers9 ability to work through problems. Not oghting. Medicare for All would 8ox9 what isn9t broken OTHER VIEWS Janet Trautwein M edicare for All remains on the congressional docket. Sen. Ber- nie Sanders, I-Vermont, recently reintroduced his bid for a single-payer sys- tem, claiming it would guarantee all Amer- icans health coverage while lowering costs and saving lives. That9s a compelling sales pitch. How- ever, the reality is that Medicare for All would outlaw private health insurance and force millions of Americans onto a single government-run plan. And contrary to what its proponents might suggest, Medicare for All would lead to worse care for patients at higher cost. Even the idea9s supporters don9t seem to know what it entails. According to poll- ing from the Kaiser Family Foundation, two-thirds of Medicare for All supporters believe they9d be able to keep their private insurance under a single-payer health care system. Sen. Sanders9s bill, of course, would ban private plans. That might not sit well with the 14 million Americans who pur- chase private plans through the Afordable Care Act9s exchanges. Almost three-quar- ters of enrollees like the plan they have now. Outlawing private insurance coverage also wouldn9t go over well with the 180 million Americans with employer-spon- sored coverage. More than seven in 10 are satisoed with their plans. That makes sense. Employers compete for employees in part by ofering gener- ous health insurance. Workers beneot from the great coverage, and employers bene- ot by being able to attract and retain qual- ity workers. By forcing everyone onto the same insurance plan, Medicare for All would take that bargaining chip away from employers and employees alike. It9s no surprise that overall support for Medicare for All 4 which usually hov- ers around 50% 4 drops to just 37% when people realize it would eliminate private health insurance. Support drops to just 26% when peo- ple learn single-payer would lead to delays in care. Delays are endemic to single-payer programs like Medicare for All. That9s because the government would pay hos- pitals and doctors below-market rates in order to deliver the savings Sen. Sanders promises. Medicare and Medicaid pay less than private insurers do. A single-payer plan would extend those low payment rates to everyone. Providers today charge privately insured patients more to make up for low reim- bursements from public plans. They wouldn9t be able to do that under Medicare for All. The result would be budget deo- cits for 90% of hospitals, according to one study from FTI Consulting. Providers would have little choice but to restrict access to services 4 if they9re able to keep their doors open. Patients would face long waits for subpar treatment. That9s exactly what happens in other countries with single-payer health care. In the United Kingdom9s National Health Ser- vice, there are more than 6 million people waiting for hospital care. Thousands have been waiting for more than two years. Similarly, under Canada9s single-payer system, patients face a median wait of nearly six months from the time they9re referred by a general practitioner to receipt of treatment from a specialist. Under Medicare for All, American patients would experience similar fates. That was the conclusion of Phillip Swa- gel, director of the Congressional Budget Oïce, who recently told Congress that sin- gle-payer would increase