In today’s politically polarized world, it can feel like there’s almost nothing Americans agree on. One major exception is healthcare—specifically, how terrible it is. Across party lines, Americans believe the system has serious problems or is in crisis, that insurance companies have too much influence, and that the quality and coverage of care are only fair or poor. Nearly two-thirds of Americans say the government should ensure everyone has healthcare coverage, though that support isn’t bipartisan.

When universal healthcare is proposed as a solution, two objections often arise: it’s “socialist,” and it will raise taxes. Both concerns deserve a closer look.

Is universal healthcare socialist?

Yes – like many U.S. policies. A simple definition of socialism includes policies that (1) create collective or government ownership of goods and services, and/or (2) provide benefits not tied to an individual’s financial contribution. The stigma surrounding socialism is complex and dates back at least to the “Red Scare” of World War I. For many, the word triggers an automatic negative reaction. Yet most people don’t realize that the U.S. has embraced numerous “socialist” policies over the past century: Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, public education, public infrastructure (roads, parks, utilities), public safety (police, fire departments, military), and public libraries. These systems all involve government control or distribution of goods and services, and they provide benefits regardless of how much someone has or has not paid into them.

Take police departments. They are funded by taxes and serve everyone including those who pay little or no taxes. But because these institutions were built before the word “socialism” became politically charged, they’re viewed as normal, essential services. Most Americans couldn’t imagine society functioning without them.

Rejecting universal healthcare simply because it sounds “socialist” is both shortsighted and counterproductive. Policies should be judged on evidence and effectiveness, not labels. Most major capitalist democracies take this approach. Of the nine largest capitalist economies, seven—Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Canada, and Brazil—have universal healthcare. Only the U.S. and India do not. Universal healthcare doesn’t make a country socialist or change its values; it’s a common feature of modern capitalist societies.

Will universal healthcare raise taxes?

No. The U.S. already spends more than enough to cover everyone. The problem isn’t a lack of money—it’s a fragmented, inefficient system dominated by pharmaceutical and insurance companies that extract billions in profits. If we removed that corporate gatekeeping, the U.S. would still spend more per person on healthcare than any other country, and we could do so without raising taxes.

Now compare the U.S.: we spend $12,555 per person for a life expectancy of 76.4 years. Even after subtracting voluntary and out-of-pocket payments, government and employer spending alone still totals $10,644 per person—far more than every country above.

This is not a new insight. A review of 22 cost studies—conducted by liberal, conservative, and non-partisan researchers—found that universal healthcare would reduce costs across the board (Cai et al. 2020). The U.S. could save roughly $600 billion annually on administrative waste and $200–300 billion on prescription costs. Even the most conservative estimates project $2 trillion in savings over ten years (i.e., Mercatus Center).

The Affordable Care Act tried to increase health care coverage and lower costs but hardly did enough to fix that system. It was analogous to putting Band-Aid on a wound that needs stitches. Capping prescription drug prices would merely add another Band-Aid. Meanwhile, premiums, deductibles, and emergency room costs continue to soar. The good news is that other countries have already tested a variety of universal healthcare models. We know what works and we can improve on them using American innovation and values.

Right now, our system leaves millions uninsured, leaves many insured people financially strained, and contributes to a ballooning national debt. We cannot afford to keep dismissing universal healthcare simply because some label it “socialist.” Instead, we should recognize healthcare as an essential public service—just like policing, firefighting, education, and libraries.

Once we do that, all Americans will be better off.

Dr. Raymond E. Barranco is professor of sociology at Mississippi State University. He earned his Ph.D. in Sociology from Louisiana State University, and his work has been published in multiple criminology and sociology journals. Dr. Barranco invites readers to send feedback and sociology-related questions you’d like him to address in this space to [email protected].

READER FAVORITES

• 

  Our View: When the chase becomes the danger

  By Dispatch Editorial Board • 6 hours ago