The U.S. healthcare system costs significantly more than any other developed nation while leaving millions uninsured or underinsured. A persistent narrative suggests that guaranteeing universal, publicly funded healthcare would inevitably require broad tax hikes. However, fiscal analysis reveals an alternative reality: American taxpayers are already paying enough to fund comprehensive universal coverage. Whether approached through a conservative lens of cutting government waste, eliminating corporate cronyism, and enforcing free-market price transparency, or a progressive lens of securing healthcare as a baseline public right, the underlying arithmetic is the same. The root issue is not a funding deficit, but a fragmented, heavily bureaucratic system that inflates prices and diverts tax dollars away from direct patient care.
Direct expenditures on medically necessary care currently stand at roughly $4.49 trillion out of an overall national healthcare footprint exceeding $5.28 trillion. A substantial portion of this expense is driven by opaque, artificial price inflation. While U.S. hospitals incur approximately $1.5 trillion to $1.6 trillion in actual operating expenses for labor, facilities, and supplies, they generate between $4.5 trillion and $7.5 trillion in gross billed charges. Using internal "chargemaster" rate schedules, sticker prices are frequently marked up 300% to 500% over the actual cost of delivery, serving as an inflated baseline for insurer negotiations rather than reflecting true economic value. In turn, massive healthcare conglomerates absorb tens of billions of public dollars each year through government programs and contracts—such as UnitedHealth Group's more than $265 billion in lifetime federal prime obligations—without corresponding gains in consumer affordability or population health outcomes.
By comparison, peer nations provide universal coverage at a fraction of the cost. The United States spends over $14,775 per capita on healthcare, while the United Kingdom spends roughly $6,747. This divergence is driven primarily by administrative complexity and unconstrained pricing leverage. The multi-payer American billing system forces providers and insurers into protracted claims arbitrations, creating administrative waste that consumes nearly 25% of all domestic health spending. Peer nations systematically reduce these burdens by negotiating standardized reimbursement schedules and leveraging bulk purchasing power for prescription drugs, stripping out layers of non-clinical bureaucracy.
Federal fiscal data underscores the scale of existing public investment. In Fiscal Year 2025, the U.S. government collected $5.26 trillion in total revenues and spent approximately $7.01 trillion across all functions. The single largest component was $1.98 trillion allocated to public healthcare programs, including Medicare, Medicaid, and the Veterans Health Administration. In effect, nearly 38% of all federal tax dollars collected are already dedicated to health coverage, yet these funds insure only about 40% of the population. The remaining 60% must secure private coverage, absorbing rising deductibles and out-of-pocket costs while their existing tax contributions already underwrite an inefficient delivery pipeline.
Applying peer-level administrative discipline demonstrates how far current resources could stretch. If the U.S. matched the UK’s National Health Service cost structure, covering all 340 million Americans would cost approximately $1.87 trillion annually—well beneath the $1.98 trillion the federal government already spends. Crucially, the U.S. does not need to accept the chronic underfunding or wait times that often challenge the NHS. If America simply froze per-person spending at its existing public rate of roughly $14,775 while eliminating bureaucratic churn, chargemaster markups, and pharmaceutical price-gouging, that same capital would support an exceptionally well-resourced system. The United States could deliver world-class clinical capacity, shorter wait times, and comprehensive coverage without levying a single cent in new taxes.
**Sources Used:**
1. Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker, "How does health spending in the U.S. compare to other countries?"
2. OECD Health Statistics / Health at a Glance, "Health expenditure per capita"
3. U.S. Department of the Treasury / Congressional Budget Office, "Federal Budget and Revenue Data for FY 2025"
4. American Hospital Association & CMS National Health Expenditure Data, "Hospital Expenditures, Operating Margins, and Gross Billed Charges"
5. USASpending.gov, "UnitedHealth Group Federal Prime Contracting and Sub-Award Obligations"
6. *Annals of Internal Medicine* / *Health Affairs*, "Health Care Administrative Costs in the United States and Canada: A Comprehensive Breakdown"

A decade ago, centrists would have shot down a single payer option as unreasonable and unrealistic to pass. Now, due to the push left by the base, they’re trying to pretend they’re for it as a middle ground.

Fun fact: they won’t pass that either.

Nice notice in the mail today. My family of three buys health insurance through the Mass Health Connector, as we're self-employed and are not eligible for any employer health insurance. Our existing plan has a deductible $1k indiv./$2k family deductible and co-insurance, too, and was already $2,210 PER MONTH. The new premium effective January 2027 will be $2,657 per month, up 16.8%...even more than the forecasts I was seeing online. As you might have guessed we will have to downgrade our plan as $32k per year is more than we can handle with the current cost of living in tRumps america.

Everyone in America pays the big price of an inefficient/complex and very, very expensive healthcare system via inflated prices for all products and service and lower wages for workers. If America was like every developed nation on earth who has Universal healthcare our cost for healthcare would be $2.5 trillion, yet we actually pay $5 trillion/year. This makes our country uncompetitive with other nations and is a core reason for growing inflation. The high cost of healthcare in America effects everyone but few realize how profound this effect is on every aspect of ones life.

Lower wages since more corporate money goes to paying higher healthcare premiums for its employees. More money for healthcare means lower/frozen wages to their employees. Both consumers and workers pay for these astronomical prices for healthcare.

Workers who are satisfied with their private health insurance benefits at their workplace should be outraged over the effects of these high cost have on their bottom line … their weekly paycheck. Employers pay up to 84% of the healthcare premiums for their employees ($19,000/year/employee). To pay extra for growing costs for healthcare, the business community must also raise prices of its product and services. This is another form of inflation that harms consumers/the working class throughout America.

The bottom line. Universal healthcare w/single payer will lower the costs of healthcare, simplify the system and guarantee it from cradle to grave no matter where you work, if you work or where you live. Permanent and portable with prospects of saving up to $2.5 trillion/year in higher wages, lower product prices (lowering inflation) and creating economic freedom for the working class. Republicans want the status quo; Democrats support Universal healthcare. Your choice America on November 3, 2026!

Hi Reddit, re: Healthcare....

We always get Congress's ATTENTION when they experience what the rest of us are going thru.

Sharing burdens help people UNDERSTAND, so......SB1:1

‘State Bill One to One’ .

Simply, Congressional Representative’s gets the same kind and $$’s of paid Healthcare as THEIR state's residents average. 1:1 

The people of each state decide how that looks, either ALL their state Representatives get %-less Monies (ie 50% subsidy) 

or 2 Representatives get the current 100%PAID subsidy, 

and other 2 Representatives get nothing Zer0$ - and will pay THEIR Healthcare privately. Like their voters do. 

I mean, we’re all in this together, whether we want to be or not….so Yah. Solutions Only, right?

Can this get on ballots? How do we Start?

*******

Congressional Bill 1:1

Title: Healthcare Equity Act for Government Employees

It is only fair that Gov’t Employees live by the rules they make.

Preamble:

Whereas equality and fairness are fundamental principles of governance,

Whereas ensuring equitable access to healthcare is essential for the well-being of all citizens, Whereas it is imperative to align the healthcare benefits of government employees with those available to their constituencies,

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America assembled,

Section 1: Short Title

This Act may be cited as the "Healthcare Equity Act for Government Employees."

Section 2: Coverage Alignment

•     Government employees, including elected officials, appointed officials, and civil servants, shall be entitled to the same healthcare coverage as the constituents they serve.

•     The healthcare coverage provided to government employees shall be subject to the same availability, terms, conditions, limitations and useage as the current healthcare coverage by the average of constituents within their respective state, as a whole state.

•     Any disparities between the healthcare coverage of government employees and that of their state’s constituents shall be rectified within a reasonable timeframe, not exceeding 6 months from the enactment of this Act. 

Section 3: Implementation

•     The Department of Health and Human Services, in collaboration with relevant federal agencies, shall be responsible for overseeing the implementation of this Act. Each county shall choose to share -%’s of lack by all, or draw straws as to who is no longer covered.

•     The Department of Health and Human Services shall work with state and local governments to gather data on healthcare coverage within each constituency and ensure that government employee healthcare benefits comply with the provisions of this Act.

Section 4: Compliance and Enforcement

•     Government agencies shall be required to annually report on the healthcare benefits provided to their employees, including elected officials, appointed officials, and civil servants, in comparison to the healthcare coverage of their constituents.

•     Any government entity found to be in violation of the provisions of this Act shall be subject to penalties, including but not limited to fines and sanctions, as determined by the overseeing authority.

Section 5: Funding

The necessary funds for the implementation of this Act shall be appropriated from the federal budget as needed.

Section 6: Sever-ability

If any provision of this Act, or the application of such provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of the Act, or the application of such provision to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is held to be unconstitutional, shall not be affected thereby.

Section 7: Effective Date

This Act shall take effect ninety (90) days after its passage into law.

This bill is presented to ensure fairness and equity in healthcare coverage for government employees, aligning their benefits with those of the constituents they serve

*******

#HealthcareEquity #Women'sHealth #EquitableAccess #PublicHealth #Healthcare #HealthPolicy #RepublicanHealthcare #Turchin #HealthcareDeaths #WomenChoice #CommunityHealthcare

Source:

https://www.facebook.com/reel/1772395877372804/

I added up what my employer and I spend on my family's healthcare. That's a spouse and one child. Just the insurance side is $27,000/year. I pay $5k and the employer pays $22k. We have hit our max out of pocket of $8,000 the last few years and that's without major illnesses. So, that's $35,000. We're a little above median income nationally and a little below median for our state and healthcare plus all the other taxes we pay accounts for over half our total compensation. Even the median French family takes home 53%.

Americans are paying the highest taxes in the world once you add up what other countries get for their tax dollars.

In traditional Medicare and Medicaid and VA health programs, government costs to administer is very low … below 2% of expenditures. While the vastly inefficient and costly private sector health programs run at rates of 13% - 17%. Why so expensive and inefficient? Because private health insurance companies have so many confusing/complex plans and must make a profit, pay their executive staff huge wage compensation packages, spend irresponsibly on expensive marketing programs and to fund stock buybacks to their rich stock holders. This is the core reason why our health care costs are so high especially in regards to the middleman/private health insurance companies.

With Universal Healthcare, we eliminate the expensive/complex health insurance companies and give the power of government/non-profit medical board to control prices for both medical products and services. The private sector will remain in other areas of the health care industry like hospitals, doctors offices and drug companies but with controls established to protect the customer/the public. Prices will be established by the single payer (government), NOT Wall Street profiteers like private equity and health insurance companies. This is the only way to reduce cost significantly and make the process simple with just one healthcare plan for everyone across the nation … guarteed permanent and portable.

In 2025, Aetna (the Health Care Benefits segment of CVS Health) reported an adjusted operating income of $2.9 billion

"As enrollment for Medicare Advantage begins this month, older Americans are confronting fewer options because insurers are discontinuing coverage in many areas."

Healthcare debates seem stuck between single payer and the status quo, and I recently learned about a middle path called Medicare Part E ("E" for Everyone).

Employers would choose: offer private coverage that meets Medicare-level standards, or pay into Medicare and have their workers enrolled automatically. No one is forced off a plan, and there's no new individual tax. The bet is that Medicare's lower overhead would pull employers toward it over time.

It was designed by Yale's Jacob Hacker, and a watered down version (the Choose Medicare Act) was reintroduced in Congress in 2025 but it hasn't moved since. The CMA bill is weaker than than Hacker's original "pay or play" mandate because it makes the employer choice voluntary.

Curious to know what your thoughts are on this as a "foot in the door" transition towards eventual MFA, and if it needs the employer mandate in order to reach that goal. Could either version realistically pass if Democrats win both chambers in November?