Ever since Jon Walker and I pointed out the real and superficial similarities between Paul Ryan’s proposed RyanCare for future seniors and the Affordable Care Act (ACA) structure for non-seniors, numerous pundits have been trying to deny either the similarities or the differences.

I’m a little confused by Erza Klein’s mostly helpful post showing, once again, the US paying much higher public and private costs than the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries for health care. Congress and the Administration should be reminded of that every day.

Klein is surely correct in noting that other developed nations rely much more on government-sponsored plans than purely private systems. As a result, they achieve not only lower total health care costs, as a percentage of GDP, but more universal coverage (and equal or better care) than does the US. The lesson to draw is fairly obvious: we need to move towards Medicare for all or some variation of a government-sponsored single-buyer model.

I don’t know if the nonsense Op-Ed by Matt Miller is due to him being too lazy to actually research the subject or him purposely choosing to spread misinformation for ideological reasons, but either way, it is a pathetic defense of the Republicans Medicare privatization plan.

A pig is a pig, even if it has Mitt Romney’s lipstick on it. For the affected groups, the basic outline of RomneyCare is the same as the basic outline of ObamaCare is the same as the basic outline of StupidRyanCare. Let’s review the features. . . .