That’s right—they voted against RFK, a lifelong Democrat—in part because he does not support one radical policy priority.
When probed on whether healthcare is a human right at his confirmation hearing, RFK said that it cannot be. Leveraging free speech as a comparison, he stated, “Free speech doesn’t cost anybody anything, but in healthcare, if you smoke cigarettes for 20 years and get cancer, you are now taking from the pool.”
RFK is correct — universal healthcare just leads to massive regressive taxes where average Americans are forced to pay for others’ bad habits. Independent estimates suggest that implementing a single-payer system would require trillions of dollars in new taxes, imposing an enormous financial burden on middle-class families and small businesses already suffering from high inflation and economic uncertainty. Yet, some Democrats are still determined to vote against RFK for not endorsing this progressive healthcare priority.
In a recent New York Times op-ed, Wendell Potter, a healthcare executive who has since become one of Congressional Democrats’ top Medicare for All allies, stated how he “was forced to come to terms with the fact that I was playing a leading role in a system that made desperate people wait months or longer to get care.” Does he really think things are better in countries with universal healthcare?
The U.S. healthcare system certainly has flaws—skyrocketing costs, bureaucratic inefficiencies, and frequent gaps in access. However, the notion that turning the entire system over to the government will solve these problems ignores both historical evidence and basic economic principles.
One only has to look north of the border to see the flaws in this line of thinking. A recent poll found that 81 percent of Americans rate their health insurance as “excellent” or “good,” while only 8% of Canadians are “very satisfied” with their healthcare. More than half of them would like their healthcare to be provided by private entrepreneurs rather than government officials.
That shouldn’t surprise anyone, as government-run healthcare systems are plagued by issues, including care rationing, long wait times, and limited innovation. For instance, the NHS in the United Kingdom faces chronic shortages of doctors and nurses, leaving patients waiting months or even years for critical procedures. Canada’s single-payer system suffers from similar inefficiencies, with patients frequently seeking care in the U.S. to avoid delays.
Progressive activists like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) do not seem to care much about these issues with Medicare for All, though. At RFK’s confirmation hearing, he was more focused on how, “last year, the insurance industry made over 70 billion dollars while, at the same time, 85 million Americans were uninsured or underinsured.”
But the argument that “greed” drives private healthcare providers to prioritize profits over patients oversimplifies the industry's dynamics. It ignores the undeniable fact that competition in a market-based system fosters innovation, advances medical technology, and delivers cutting-edge treatments. Many of the world’s most groundbreaking drugs and therapies are developed in the U.S. precisely because of the incentives inherent in a free-market system. Removing these incentives risks stifling progress and leaving patients worse off.
Besides, a government healthcare takeover would not eliminate fraud or waste—it would amplify it.
Medicare and Medicaid, which already operate under federal control, are frequent targets of fraud, costing taxpayers billions of dollars annually. Expanding the government's role in healthcare without addressing these vulnerabilities would exacerbate the problem rather than resolve it.
Rather than abandoning the existing private healthcare system, policymakers should focus on targeted reforms that build on its strengths while addressing its weaknesses. Encouraging price transparency, increasing competition among insurers, and reforming regulations that stifle innovation can all help to lower costs and improve access without sacrificing quality. Expanding Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) and supporting state-level initiatives to strengthen Medicaid delivery are additional steps that could empower patients and reduce government overreach.
If Democrats want to be mad about RFK’s confirmation, that is their choice and prerogative, but Medicare for All should not be the issue that they dig their heels in on.
Progressive calls for a government-run system rest on the false assumption that bureaucracy can better meet patients’ needs than the private sector. History and experience suggest otherwise. It’s time to move beyond divisive rhetoric and work toward pragmatic solutions that preserve choice, foster innovation, and ensure high-quality care for all Americans.
Daniel Perrin is President of the HSA Coalition.
