"The cheap politics and magic math of Sanderscare" was the title of Catherine Rampell's Sept. 15 op-ed criticizing proposals by many congressional Democrats for a national, single-payer health-care plan and "Medicare for all," but she cited not a single statistic regarding health or economic outcomes, perhaps because universal health coverage is such a success in so many nations around the globe.

Steven Sellers Lapham, Gaithersburg

Eugene Robinson was correct that Sen. Bernie Sanders's (I-Vt.) proposal for a "Medicare for All" health insurance system is the "right thing to do" ["An idea no longer on the fringe," op-ed, Sept. 15]. It would cover everyone with first-dollar coverage for all medically necessary care.

But "Medicare for All" is not socialized medicine, in which the government would own medical facilities and health-care providers would be government employees. Rather, this is socialized insurance, and it is enormously popular among conservatives and liberals already covered by Medicare. The excellent medical system we have now wouldn't change; how we pay for it would.

Also, regarding those projected 10-year costs: We already spend a "staggering" $3.4 trillion each year on health care and still manage to leave 28 million people without any health insurance and tens of millions more greatly underinsured. An improved "Medicare for All" single-payer system would fix that, with a cost-effective system based on competition among providers that would be the continuing envy of the world. (That $3.4 trillion is enough to cover everyone. We just don't spend it wisely because we waste as much as $500 billion on administrative costs to accommodate our multiple-payer system.)

It's only a matter of time before the politicians catch up with the majority of Americans who already want a single-payer system.

Jay Brock, Fredericksburg

Catherine Rampell argued in her Sept. 15 op-ed, "The cheap politics and magic math of Sanderscare," that a single-payer health-care system is desirable but would involve sharp tax increases and a loss of employer-sponsored health insurance. She pointed out that Sen. Bernie Sanders's (I-Vt.) plan does not address such issues.

One assumption of the single-payer approach is that health care is both necessary and sufficient for health. There are reasons to think it may be neither; indeed, it may well be counterproductive.

Suppose every problem with your car was fixed at no charge to you. You could ruin a fender, run out of oil or leave windows open in the rain, and it would be taken care of. Most people would begin to ignore basic care of their cars. Why bother?

And with health care, the same process might well occur. In other words, a single-payer system might also constitute a moral hazard.

William Vaughan Jr., Chebeague Island, Maine