To the Editor:

I don’t understand the current terms of the debate on Medicare for All versus private insurance. I am on Medicare, and I also subscribe to a private plan that supplements Medicare (eliminating all co-payments, for instance). The two so far have worked together seamlessly. I don’t think Medicare for All need put private health insurance out of business; on the contrary, there would be plenty of room for supplementary policies of many sorts.

So public debate ought not to claim that the two are mutually exclusive. We need Medicare for All, and many will continue to need private insurance policies as well.

Peter Brooks

New Haven

To the Editor:

One of the arguments raised against implementing Medicare for All is that millions of people prefer their private health insurance. Really? Because an awful lot of people seem perfectly happy to ditch private insurance and to jump into Medicare when they hit 65.

David Kornhaber

Santa Monica, Calif.

To the Editor:

It ’s clear that at present Medicare for All is a loser. Here’s a clear winner: Medicare for Kids. Free checkups at school, fewer workdays lost, emergency rooms just for emergencies, vaccines for all. A winner for Democrats, for kids and for the country.