In today’s politically polarized world, it can feel like there’s almost nothing Americans agree on. One major exception is health care—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 over health policy, 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 health care coverage, though that support is not bipartisan.
When universal health care 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 Health Care Socialist?
Yes—like many U.S. policies. A simple definition of socialism includes policies that create collective or government ownership of goods and services, and/or 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 health care 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 health care. Only the U.S. and India do not. Universal health care doesn’t make a country socialist or change its values; it’s a common feature of modern capitalist societies.
Will Universal Health Care 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 health care than any other country, and we could do so without raising taxes.
Consider what universal health care costs in other wealthy capitalist countries:
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 in the above table.
This is not a new insight. A review of 22 cost studies—conducted by liberal, conservative and non-partisan researchers—found that universal health care would reduce costs across the board. The U.S. could save roughly $600 billion annually on administrative waste and $200–300 billion on prescription costs. Even the most conservative researchers project $2 trillion in savings over ten years.
What Can Be Done?
The cost of inaction is far too high. As 2020 showed, health crises are often unpredictable. Researchers at Yale’s School of Public Health estimate that if universal health care had been in place before the COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. could have prevented nearly 212,000 deaths and saved $105 billion in hospitalization costs in that single year.
For Mississippi, the first step is expanding Medicaid. The state is one of only ten that has not adopted expansion and currently has the third most restrictive eligibility requirements in the nation. For example, a working adult with two children becomes ineligible if they earn more than $495 per month. As a result, roughly 200,000 Mississippians earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford private insurance. Falling into this coverage gap can have deadly consequences.
But the real change needs to occur at the national level. Half-measures will not solve the problem. The Affordable Care Act tried to increase health care coverage and lower costs, but it barely scratched the surface. It was like putting a Band-Aid on a wound that needs stitches. Similarly, capping prescription drug prices would merely add another Band-Aid. Meanwhile, premiums, deductibles and emergency room costs continue to rise faster than wages.
The implementation of the ACA and prescription drug caps are useful as short-term measures, but they should accompany a broader effort to implement universal health care—a process that will take time. The good news is that other countries have already tested a range of universal health care 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 health care simply because some label it “socialist.” Instead, we should recognize health care as an essential public service—just like policing, firefighting, education and libraries.
Once we do that, all Americans will be better off.
This MFP Voices opinion essay reflects the personal opinion of its author(s). The column does not necessarily represent the views of the Mississippi Free Press, its staff or board members. To submit an opinion for the MFP Voices section, send up to 1,200 words and sources fact-checking the included information to voices@mississippifreepress.org. We welcome a wide variety of viewpoints.