Betsy Sweet, a candidate for the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate, makes the case for “Medicare for All” in a Dec. 21 op-ed. As she puts it: “It covers everyone and every illness. It will cover long-term care, hearing aids, glasses and dental care.” Further, she says, it would save $2 trillion over 10 years.

There is one change that would both increase our health, and cost less: Cover only those problems not brought on by one’s own behavior. For example, if you decide to drive drunk, hit a tree and require $100,000 in medical care, her program would pay for it, thereby both subsidizing drunken driving and taxing others to pay for the results. Not paying for such self-imposed problems would both save money and deter such irresponsible behavior.

Consider obesity. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the current epidemic is not because of genes, which change too slowly to create the problem. As WebMD puts it, by and large the problem is because of eating too much and exercising too little. The National League of Cities pegs the annual cost of obesity at $190 billion.

Medicare for All would subsidize obesity by shelling out that $190 billion (after taking that money by means of taxation). The change spelled out above would save that money and thereby encourage healthier food consumption as well as exercise.

It is counterproductive to pay for problems caused by individual choice. Our current loss of longevity will only get worse under Medicare for All.

William Vaughan Jr.

Chebeague Island