A right, not a privilege

The history of healthcare in the United States is a complex evolution shaped by technological advances, shifting political ideologies, and economic forces. Here’s a brief overview of how it grew into a massive, corporate-like entity.

In the early 19th and early 20th centuries, most healthcare in the U.S. was provided through small, community-based organizations, charitable institutions, and religious groups. Hospitals were largely non-profit and catered primarily to the poor, as wealthier individuals could afford private doctors at home. Healthcare was limited, both in terms of accessibility and technological sophistication. But the period during and after World War II would change that, laying a foundation for many of the systemic structures and issues that exist today. Two key developments during this time—the rise of employer-sponsored health insurance and the establishment of Medicare and Medicaid—had profound, long-lasting effects on healthcare access, delivery, and financing in the United States.

During World War II, the U.S. government was focused on controlling inflation and stabilizing wages to support the war effort. As a result, the Stabilization Act of 1942 was passed, which imposed wage freezes across industries. Employers, unable to offer higher wages to attract or retain workers, turned to alternative benefits like health insurance to compete for labor.

The federal government allowed employer-provided health insurance to be excluded from taxable income, making it a cost-effective benefit for both employers and employees. This tax break became a powerful incentive for companies to offer health insurance as part of compensation packages. Over time, this policy contributed to the growth of employer-sponsored health insurance as the primary means through which Americans accessed healthcare.

Before World War II, most Americans did not have health insurance, and those who did often purchased it directly. The rise of employer-sponsored plans changed this, leading to a system where private insurance became the dominant method of healthcare coverage. By the 1950s and 1960s, millions of Americans received health insurance through their jobs, marking a significant shift in how healthcare was financed in the U.S. But this reliance on employer-based health insurance created a fragmented system, where access to healthcare became increasingly tied to employment. This system excluded certain groups—particularly the unemployed, underemployed, and self-employed—from affordable healthcare, which laid the groundwork for significant disparities in access to care.

The emphasis on employer-sponsored insurance solidified the notion that healthcare coverage was a benefit of employment rather than a fundamental right. This contributed to the U.S. healthcare system's unique structure, where universal coverage is not guaranteed, unlike in many other industrialized nations.

By embedding health insurance within the private sector, the American healthcare system became increasingly driven by market forces. Health insurance companies and employers took on a central role in determining access to healthcare, pricing, and coverage policies. This set the stage for the commercialization of healthcare and the influence of corporate interests that dominate the system today.

By the 1960s, despite the growing prevalence of employer-sponsored insurance, many Americans remained without coverage, particularly the elderly, the poor, and people with disabilities. To address these gaps, the federal government created Medicare and Medicaid in 1965 under President Lyndon B. Johnson’s administration as part of the Great Society programs.

Medicare was designed to provide health insurance for Americans aged 65 and older, many of whom were retired and thus ineligible for employer-sponsored health insurance, while Medicaid was created to offer health coverage to low-income individuals and families. The program is jointly funded by the federal government and individual states, giving states significant flexibility in determining eligibility and benefits. Medicaid primarily serves low-income families, pregnant women, the elderly, and individuals with disabilities.

Medicare and Medicaid allowed the U.S. to keep pace with global health trends, ensuring that a portion of its population—especially the elderly and low-income individuals—had access to healthcare funded by the federal government. As countries like the United Kingdom, Canada, and many in Europe transitioned to universal healthcare systems funded entirely or primarily by the federal government, the creation of Medicare and Medicaid helped prevent the U.S. from falling too far behind in terms of expanding access to care.

Medicare and Medicaid fundamentally transformed healthcare access in the U.S. by extending coverage to millions of previously uninsured individuals. Medicare, in particular, provided a safety net for older Americans, many of whom faced medical expenses they could not afford. Medicaid extended healthcare to vulnerable populations who were excluded from the employer-based insurance system.

The creation of Medicare and Medicaid also marked a major shift in the role of the federal government in healthcare. These programs made the government a key provider of healthcare financing, alongside private insurance. This dual system—where the government provides for specific populations while private insurers cover the majority—became a defining feature of U.S. healthcare.

This led to significant increases in government spending on healthcare. As more Americans gained access to medical services through these programs, the demand for care surged, and healthcare costs began to rise. This expansion of care, coupled with the technological and pharmaceutical advances of the time, contributed to the rapid growth of healthcare expenditures in the following decades.

But, while Medicare and Medicaid addressed immediate gaps in healthcare access, they also created unintended challenges. The programs' expansive nature made them difficult to sustain financially, and over time, both programs have faced rising costs due to increased demand and the aging population. Efforts to control costs, such as the introduction of managed care models, have added layers of complexity and administrative burden to the system.

Advancements in medical technology, pharmaceuticals, and specialized care during the latter half of the 20th century significantly broadened the capabilities of healthcare, but these innovations also led to soaring costs. As hospitals modernized and expanded their range of services, healthcare transformed into a highly profitable industry, with increasing commercialization driving much of its growth. What was once a community-centered, patient-focused system began evolving into a business enterprise, with profit margins and market competitiveness becoming key factors in shaping healthcare delivery.

By the 1980s, healthcare had begun to resemble a massive industry rather than a public service. The emergence of Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) and Managed Care aimed to control skyrocketing costs but led to a new layer of corporate management in the sector. Large insurance companies and hospital networks became powerful players, often focusing on profit margins and efficiency rather than patient care alone.

During the 1990s and 2000s, healthcare in the U.S. transformed into an even more corporatized entity. For-profit hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and insurance companies grew larger through mergers and acquisitions, creating enormous conglomerates that continue dominate the market today. Pharmaceutical companies heavily marketed drugs, and insurance firms gained significant influence in determining access to care, further commercializing the system. As healthcare spending grew, so did the political and economic influence of these large entities. Hospitals became big businesses, while pharmaceutical and insurance companies merged into giants. These institutions are often seen as "too big to fail," due to their size, economic impact, and essential role in providing care. Efforts to regulate or reform healthcare face challenges from the powerful healthcare lobby.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA), signed into law in 2010 by Barrack Obama, sought to expand healthcare access and regulate the insurance market. While it improved access for millions, it also underscored the difficulties in reforming a system that had become too large and too complex. Healthcare costs continued to rise, and the dominance of massive hospital systems, insurers, and pharmaceutical companies made substantive change difficult.

The ACA can be seen as a success for several reasons, primarily related to expanding healthcare access, improving coverage, and addressing some systemic inefficiencies. While it has faced criticism and political challenges, the ACA achieved notable milestones that have had a positive impact on American healthcare.

One of the ACA's most significant successes is the dramatic increase in the number of insured Americans. Since its implementation, more than 20 million previously uninsured people gained health coverage through Medicaid expansion, marketplace exchanges, and the extension of dependent coverage. This marked one of the largest reductions in the uninsured rate in U.S. history.

It allowed states to expand Medicaid to individuals earning up to 138% of the federal poverty level. As a result, millions of low-income individuals who were previously ineligible for Medicaid gained access to healthcare, significantly reducing the uninsured rate, especially in states that adopted the expansion.

The ACA also allowed young adults to remain on their parents' health insurance plans until age 26. This provision provided coverage to millions of young Americans who would otherwise have been without insurance, especially as an increasing amount of young adults that age were unemployed college students, which became increasingly more difficult during the economic downturn following the 2008 financial crisis.

The ACA prohibited insurers from denying coverage or charging higher premiums to individuals with pre-existing conditions. Prior to the ACA, many Americans with conditions such as diabetes, cancer, or heart disease were denied insurance or faced exorbitant costs. The law's protections ensured that these individuals could access affordable health coverage. Insurers were also prohibited from imposing lifetime or annual limits on essential health benefits, which was particularly important for people with chronic or costly medical conditions. This protection meant that individuals could not run out of coverage when they needed it most.

The ACA also established a set of essential health benefits that all insurance plans must cover. These benefits include hospitalization, maternity care, mental health services, preventive care, and prescription drugs. This standardized the quality of coverage and ensured that even the most basic plans covered essential services. The ACA mandated that preventive services—such as vaccinations, cancer screenings, and annual wellness visits—be provided without co-pays or deductibles. This provision encouraged preventive care, which can lead to early detection of illnesses and ultimately reduce healthcare costs by avoiding more expensive treatments down the road.

The creation of online health insurance marketplaces (or exchanges) allowed individuals and small businesses to shop for and compare insurance plans. To make insurance affordable, the ACA offered subsidies for individuals earning between 100% and 400% of the federal poverty level. These subsidies helped millions of low- and middle-income Americans afford insurance that would otherwise be out of reach. By creating these marketplaces, the ACA encouraged competition among insurers, which helped to keep costs down in many regions. In some areas, consumers could compare multiple plans and choose the best option for their needs and budget.

The ACA significantly improved healthcare access for traditionally underserved and marginalized groups, including racial minorities, rural populations, and women. Medicaid expansion played a key role in reducing healthcare disparities, particularly in states that adopted the expansion. Studies show that the ACA helped narrow racial and ethnic disparities in insurance coverage. The ACA provided specific benefits for women, including coverage for maternity care, contraceptive services, and preventive screenings, such as mammograms. Before the ACA, many individual health plans did not cover maternity care, and women often faced higher premiums than men.

Although healthcare costs continue to rise, the ACA helped slow the rate of growth in healthcare spending compared to previous years. The law introduced several cost-containment measures, including incentives to reduce hospital readmissions and a focus on value-based care. Medicare payment reforms under the ACA encouraged providers to focus on outcomes rather than volume of services. By eliminating cost-sharing for preventive services and expanding access to regular care, the ACA contributed to a healthcare system more focused on prevention, which can reduce the overall burden on emergency rooms and hospital care, ultimately helping to control long-term costs.

The ACA encouraged the development of Accountable Care Organizations, groups of healthcare providers that coordinate patient care with the goal of improving quality and reducing costs. ACOs aim to make healthcare providers more accountable for the care they provide, incentivizing them to deliver more efficient, high-quality care. The ACA introduced various initiatives to shift healthcare payments from a volume-based to a value-based system, rewarding providers for improving patient outcomes rather than for the quantity of services provided. This represents a significant step toward addressing inefficiencies in the healthcare system.

Additionally, the ACA placed limits on out-of-pocket costs for consumers, protecting them from catastrophic financial consequences of high medical bills. This provision is especially important for people with chronic conditions or those who experience unexpected medical emergencies. The ACA's subsidies made it possible for low- and middle-income individuals to afford health insurance, reducing the financial burden associated with healthcare. These financial supports provided millions of Americans with access to necessary care without sinking into debt.

To address mental health, the ACA expanded access to mental health services and substance use disorder treatment, requiring plans to cover these services as part of the essential health benefits. This was especially significant in addressing the opioid crisis and increasing access to mental health care, which was previously underfunded and underprioritized in many insurance plans. The ACA established the Prevention and Public Health Fund, the first mandatory funding stream dedicated to improving public health infrastructure and services. This fund was designed to support preventive care, research, and interventions aimed at reducing the incidence of chronic diseases, improving health outcomes, and promoting healthier lifestyles.

Perhaps one of the ACA's biggest successes is its long-term impact on the political and cultural debate about healthcare in the U.S. Before the ACA, the idea of universal healthcare or government involvement in providing coverage was highly controversial. Since its passage, the public has increasingly come to view healthcare as a right rather than a privilege, setting the stage for future reforms aimed at expanding coverage even further, such as proposals for a public option or Medicare for All. Despite political opposition to the ACA, many of its key provisions, such as protections for people with pre-existing conditions and allowing young adults to stay on their parents' plans, are widely supported across the political spectrum. This enduring popularity reflects the ACA's success in addressing key problems within the healthcare system.

Universal healthcare systems in countries around the world, including Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Sweden, provide a stark contrast to the fragmented, profit-driven healthcare system in the United States. These countries have embraced the principle that healthcare is a basic human right, accessible to all citizens regardless of their income or employment status. While universal healthcare models vary in design and scope, they all share a common feature: a system that prioritizes public health and access to care over corporate profits.

Canada’s healthcare system, known as Medicare, provides universal coverage for all citizens, funded primarily through taxes. Unlike in the U.S., where insurance is often tied to employment and coverage can vary widely, Canadians receive healthcare as a public service. Hospitals and doctors are largely private entities, but they are reimbursed by the government, meaning no one in Canada faces bankruptcy or financial ruin due to medical bills. Prescription drug coverage is also more affordable, though not fully universal. Canadians may face some delays in accessing specialized care, but overall, the system provides comprehensive services without the overwhelming burden of out-of-pocket expenses.

The United Kingdom’s National Health Service (NHS) is one of the most well-known universal healthcare systems. The NHS is publicly funded and provides healthcare free at the point of use for all UK residents. Through general taxation, the government covers all aspects of care, from routine doctor visits to major surgeries, without billing patients. The NHS also negotiates directly with pharmaceutical companies to keep drug prices low. While the NHS faces funding and staffing challenges, it continues to serve as a model for healthcare systems that prioritize access to care for everyone, not just those who can afford it.

Germany’s healthcare system operates under a hybrid model of universal healthcare, where both public and private insurers coexist. However, the country ensures that every citizen is covered through a combination of employer contributions and individual payments into non-profit “sickness funds.” Unlike in the U.S., healthcare in Germany is not a for-profit endeavor. The government regulates prices and guarantees universal coverage, making healthcare accessible to all, regardless of income or employment status.

Sweden offers a highly regarded universal healthcare system, primarily funded through taxation. All Swedish residents have access to healthcare services that are heavily subsidized, with out-of-pocket costs capped at low amounts. The Swedish model prioritizes preventive care and mental health, addressing healthcare as a holistic issue that goes beyond just treating illness. Like in many other European countries, Sweden’s system focuses on equity and reducing disparities in access to care.

The main reason the U.S. has not adopted universal healthcare is not due to the impracticality or inefficiency of such systems, but rather because healthcare has become a lucrative industry that generates immense wealth for a select few. The wealthy individuals and corporations that profit from the U.S. healthcare system have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, and they exert enormous political influence to prevent meaningful reform.

Healthcare in the United States is a multi-trillion-dollar industry. Large hospital chains, insurance companies, and pharmaceutical corporations make billions in profits annually.

The cost of healthcare in the U.S. is the highest in the world. Americans pay more for prescription drugs, hospital stays, and procedures than citizens in any other country. This makes pharmaceutical companies and hospitals a lot of money. The cost of healthcare in the U.S. is the highest in the world, with total healthcare spending reaching approximately $4.3 trillion in 2021, accounting for nearly 18.3% of the country's GDP. Americans spend, on average, about $12,914 per person annually on healthcare, significantly more than citizens of other developed nations. Prescription drugs are a major driver of these costs, with the U.S. accounting for around 42% of global pharmaceutical revenues. Yet, despite these high costs, outcomes are often worse, and many people still lack access to basic care. This disconnect between spending and quality is largely due to the fact that healthcare is treated as a commodity, rather than a public service.

A significant portion of healthcare spending in the U.S. goes to administrative costs, such as billing, insurance claim management, and marketing. This is the result of a highly fragmented system, where multiple private insurers and healthcare providers are engaged in complex negotiations over coverage and payments. Private insurance companies play a major role in this, collecting around $1.25 trillion in revenue in 2021 from premiums, with a substantial share going toward administrative tasks such as billing, claims management, marketing, and profit margins. In contrast, countries with universal healthcare systems enjoy far lower administrative costs because they have more streamlined systems.

The healthcare industry wields significant political power through lobbying and campaign contributions. Organizations like the American Hospital Association, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), and the Health Insurance Association of America spend hundreds of millions of dollars each year on lobbying efforts to influence legislation and prevent policies that could reduce their profits, such as drug price controls or the creation of a public option. Wealthy executives and shareholders of these corporations have a direct financial interest in keeping the system privatized and driven by profit.

The inability to adopt universal healthcare in the U.S. is also a direct result of the influence that the healthcare industry exerts on politicians. Many members of Congress receive significant campaign contributions from insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and hospital groups. These contributions shape the policies that politicians support and ensure that any efforts to move toward a universal healthcare system are met with fierce resistance. For example, during the debate over the ACA, major insurance and pharmaceutical companies successfully lobbied to exclude a public option that would have competed with private insurers. More recently, efforts to lower prescription drug prices or expand Medicare have been stalled or watered down due to opposition from the healthcare industry.

Wealthy stakeholders in the U.S. healthcare system fiercely oppose universal healthcare because it threatens their substantial profits. The healthcare industry functions as a vast corporate enterprise, where executives, shareholders, and lobbyists benefit from a system that prioritizes financial gain over public health. Compounding this, many wealthy individuals, including politicians who also receive significant campaign contributions from these corporations, also have personal investments in the industry. As a result, they have little incentive to push for systemic change that would jeopardize their financial interests, perpetuating a healthcare model that serves the affluent at the expense of broader societal well-being.

Many Americans believe that universal healthcare would be too costly, but this perception is largely influenced by wealthy individuals and corporate interests who benefit from the current system. These individuals, often seen as business-savvy and financially successful, have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, as they profit from the privatized healthcare model. They push the narrative that universal healthcare would lead to higher taxes and government inefficiency, despite evidence to the contrary.

In reality, a universal healthcare system would reduce overall costs by streamlining administrative processes, negotiating lower drug prices, and eliminating the profit-driven focus of insurance companies. These wealthy stakeholders, however, are biased—they stand to lose significant financial gains if the system were reformed. Americans are being misled by these voices, who, under the guise of expertise, prioritize their own financial interests over the well-being of the broader population. Universal healthcare would not only be affordable but could also save money, delivering more efficient and equitable care for everyone.

Studies estimate that a universal healthcare system, such as Medicare for All, could save the U.S. up to $450 billion annually by reducing administrative waste and negotiating lower drug prices, while also providing comprehensive coverage to everyone. Instead of funneling money into a fragmented system that prioritizes profits, universal healthcare would more efficiently allocate resources, delivering better health outcomes at a lower overall cost.

While taxpayers may see a slight increase in taxes under a universal healthcare model, they would no longer have to pay premiums, deductibles, or copays—which currently result in significant out-of-pocket expenses. For many Americans, these savings would more than offset any additional taxes. By eliminating private insurance companies and the financial burdens tied to complex coverage, universal healthcare would free families from the constant financial strain of navigating the current system.

This change would be especially significant considering that an estimated 100 million Americans are currently struggling with medical debt, a burden that often leads to financial ruin. Ironically, some of those in medical debt may be among the individuals opposing universal healthcare, despite the fact that such a system would eliminate their risk of crippling medical bills in the future. By reducing the overall cost burden on individuals and families and providing access to necessary care without the fear of financial devastation, universal healthcare would create a fairer, more accessible system that benefits everyone.

So, the lack of universal healthcare in the U.S. is not an issue of feasibility or cost—it is a moral and political failure. As long as wealthy individuals and corporations can invest in these companies and funnel money into political campaigns and lobbyists, the healthcare system will remain profit-driven, leaving millions of Americans vulnerable to inadequate care and financial ruin. Until the U.S. disentangles its healthcare system from corporate greed and political influence, the possibility of universal healthcare will remain out of reach for the majority of Americans.

Sadly, with this fragmented, profit-driven healthcare system, America is often regarded as the unhealthiest Western country when compared to its peers. Despite spending more on healthcare per capita than any other nation, the U.S. consistently lags behind in key health metrics, reflecting a system that prioritizes profits over public well-being.

The U.S. has a lower life expectancy compared to many other Western nations. In 2021, the U.S. ranked 40th globally in life expectancy, well behind countries like Japan, Switzerland, and France. While life expectancy in many other countries has steadily increased, the U.S. has seen declines in recent years due to issues such as rising chronic diseases, obesity, and drug-related deaths. A significant portion of U.S. deaths are from preventable causes, such as cardiovascular disease and diabetes, both of which are closely tied to lifestyle factors like poor diet and lack of access to preventive healthcare

The U.S. has one of the highest infant mortality rates among developed countries, at approximately 5.6 deaths per 1,000 live births. This is starkly higher than in countries with universal healthcare, such as Finland (1.8 per 1,000) and Japan (2 per 1,000). The high infant mortality rate is a reflection of unequal access to prenatal care, healthcare disparities, and higher rates of premature births.

The U.S. has the highest obesity rate among Western nations, with nearly 42% of American adults classified as obese. Obesity is a leading risk factor for chronic diseases such as diabetes, hypertension, and heart disease, all of which are prevalent in the U.S. Obesity-related healthcare costs are a significant burden on the U.S. system, but preventive care and public health initiatives are often underfunded compared to the profits generated by treating chronic conditions. The prevalence of type 2 diabetes and heart disease in the U.S. is significantly higher than in other countries. In 2021, more than 10% of the U.S. population had diabetes, compared to countries like the U.K. (around 6%) or Germany (around 7%). This reflects inadequate preventive care and a healthcare system that focuses more on treatment than prevention.

The U.S. is the only developed country where medical bills are a leading cause of bankruptcy. Studies show that over 60% of personal bankruptcies in the U.S. are linked to medical debt. In countries with universal healthcare systems, medical debt and bankruptcy due to healthcare costs are virtually non-existent, as care is either free at the point of use or significantly more affordable. Even insured Americans face high out-of-pocket costs, with deductibles and copayments that can easily total thousands of dollars annually. This discourages many people from seeking necessary medical care, further contributing to the worsening of preventable conditions. In contrast, countries like Canada, the U.K., and Sweden limit out-of-pocket costs or eliminate them entirely for essential services.

The U.S. continues to grapple with an opioid epidemic, which has led to a surge in drug overdose deaths. In 2021, drug overdoses killed over 100,000 Americans, with opioid-related deaths accounting for a significant portion of these fatalities. The crisis can be traced back to aggressive marketing by pharmaceutical companies and lax regulation, underscoring the consequences of allowing profit motives to drive healthcare decisions. Other countries with stricter regulations on opioid prescriptions have avoided such widespread addiction and death.

The U.S. also has one of the highest suicide rates among developed nations. In 2021, the suicide rate in the U.S. was 14.5 per 100,000 people, significantly higher than in countries like the U.K. (7.9 per 100,000) or Germany (9.6 per 100,000). A lack of accessible mental health services, coupled with economic stressors like medical debt, contributes to this crisis. Access to mental health care in the U.S. is inconsistent, with many Americans facing barriers to treatment due to high costs and limited insurance coverage for psychiatric care. In contrast, many countries with universal healthcare systems include comprehensive mental health services as part of their standard care, ensuring that individuals can access support without financial burden.

The U.S. healthcare system also exacerbates inequalities in health outcomes. Racial minorities and low-income individuals face higher rates of chronic illnesses, infant mortality, and preventable diseases. African Americans, for example, have a life expectancy 4-5 years shorter than white Americans, and Hispanic Americans face higher rates of diabetes and obesity. These disparities are rooted in unequal access to care, systemic racism within healthcare institutions, and broader social determinants of health. Universal healthcare systems in other countries are designed to reduce these disparities by ensuring equal access to services for all citizens.

The U.S. spends more on healthcare than any other country, with healthcare expenditures exceeding 18% of its GDP. However, the return on this investment is poor, with worse health outcomes compared to countries that spend far less. Countries like Sweden, Germany, and the U.K. spend significantly less per capita on healthcare but achieve better overall health outcomes, such as higher life expectancy and lower rates of preventable diseases.

While the ACA helped address several flaws in the U.S. healthcare system—expanding coverage, protecting those with pre-existing conditions, and improving access for millions—it ultimately falls short of solving the deeper issues. The U.S. healthcare system remains fragmented, excessively costly, and driven by profit, leaving many Americans still uninsured or underinsured. The ACA was a step forward, but it did not fundamentally alter the structural problems that continue to burden both individuals and the economy.

What the U.S. truly needs is a total revamp of the system in the form of universal healthcare. A single-payer system would ensure that healthcare is treated as a right, not a privilege tied to employment or wealth. By replacing the patchwork of private insurers with a streamlined, government-funded system, the U.S. could reduce inefficiencies, lower costs, and provide comprehensive care for all citizens. The time for incremental changes has passed—universal healthcare is the solution that can fix the root problems and deliver quality, affordable care to every American.

Politicians, particularly Republicans, are largely opposed to universal healthcare because it threatens the potential for profit that is deeply embedded in the current system. Many Republican lawmakers and their supporters have strong ties to the healthcare industry, including private insurers, pharmaceutical companies, and hospitals, all of which generate massive profits under the existing model. Universal healthcare would disrupt this profit stream by eliminating the need for private insurance and reducing the power of corporations to set high prices for care and medications. For Republicans and the wealthy stakeholders they represent, universal healthcare means a loss of lucrative opportunities, not just for the industry, but also for those who profit from investments in healthcare companies. As a result, they frame universal healthcare as unaffordable or inefficient, despite evidence to the contrary. Their opposition is driven not by concerns for public health or economic sustainability, but by the desire to preserve the financial interests of those who benefit from the privatized system.

Nothing will truly change in the U.S. healthcare system until we get money out of politics. The deep entanglement of corporate money and political power ensures that meaningful reform, like universal healthcare, remains out of reach. Wealthy stakeholders in the healthcare industry—insurance companies, pharmaceutical giants, and hospital corporations—funnel millions of dollars into lobbying and campaign contributions to maintain the status quo. As long as politicians are financially dependent on these industries, they are incentivized to protect their interests, even if it means prioritizing profits over people’s health.

This financial influence distorts policy decisions and prevents progress toward a more equitable, affordable healthcare system. Without removing the influence of money from politics, any attempt to reform healthcare will be met with fierce resistance from those who profit from the current model. The system will continue to serve corporate interests at the expense of public well-being, and the American people will continue to pay the price. Only by addressing the root issue—corporate money driving political decisions—can we hope to achieve real, transformative healthcare reform.