As Vice President Kamala Harris hides her support for Medicare for All, covertly championing her belief that healthcare is a fundamental human right, it becomes increasingly urgent to confront several myths that cloud the healthcare debate.
Harris’s plan, echoing progressive rhetoric of universal coverage, hinges on the assumption that all necessary health care can and should be provided by government to every American, both those legally here as well as illegal immigrants. Before considering any reform of healthcare, we must address several widely accepted but fundamentally flawed beliefs that undermine our understanding of the healthcare system. After dispelling these myths, we can Empower We the Patients.
-
Cost is not spending.
A recent headline proclaimed, “healthcare costs are expected to jump by 9% in 2025.” But this isn’t about costs—it’s about spending. The distinction is crucial as we evaluate Harris’s Medicare for All initiative, which, while well-intentioned, risks inflating spending without addressing the underlying inefficiencies that drive these numbers. The U.S. spent $4.8 trillion on healthcare in 2023, but about half of that wasn’t on actual care—it was on the bloated bureaucracy that Harris’s plan would likely expand rather than streamline. The resources needed to produce health care services—the true cost—vastly differ from the inflated spending figures driven by administrative bloat. Real reform requires understanding and addressing this difference, not conflating the two.
-
Coverage does not equal care.
One of the most persistent myths Harris seems to embrace is the idea that coverage equals care. Her vision for healthcare reform is laser-focused on expanding insurance, yet experience shows that insurance coverage does not guarantee timely or quality care. Patients with government plans like Medicaid often face long waits for treatment, sometimes with fatal consequences. Conversely, those without insurance often receive necessary care under existing laws, revealing the complex reality that coverage does not equate to access. Simply having insurance doesn’t ensure patients receive the care they need. Harris’s Medicare for All proposal, focused on expanding coverage, misses this critical distinction.
-
Your doctor doesn’t decide your care—an administrator or bureaucrat does.
We like to think that our doctors will always provide the best possible care, but that decision is often out of their hands in today’s healthcare system. Harris’s plan would deepen this problem by expanding the role of bureaucrats in deciding what care is approved and provided. Your physician does not choose your medications—a pharmacy benefits manager does. Your primary care doctor does not refer you to the surgeon with the best outcomes—you must go to whomever your insurance company contracts with. As Harris proposes, expanding government control over healthcare decisions would only further distance patients from personalized care decisions.
-
There is no right to healthcare in a free society.
Harris’s push for Medicare for All is rooted in the belief that healthcare is a basic human right. However, this notion raises serious questions about the implications for patients and providers. Rights, such as free speech or religious freedom, are inherent and do not require someone else’s labor or resources to exercise. Declaring healthcare as a right would effectively compel medical professionals to provide services on demand, regardless of their consent. True rights do not impose obligations on others. Harris’s vision would undermine the autonomy of healthcare providers, reducing their freedom and potentially compromising care quality.
-
Medical autonomy no longer exists in the U.S.
In the United States, personal freedom, including medical autonomy, is enshrined in the Constitution. However, through the current third-party payment structure, entities like the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and private insurers, which follow federal regulations, effectively decide Americans’ medical care. Harris’s proposal would likely strengthen this system, further eroding patient choice. As Harris pushes for greater government involvement in healthcare, patient choice and autonomy erosion will only accelerate.
-
Tyranny has returned to the U.S. healthcare system.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the government exerted unprecedented control over medical decisions, from mandating vaccines to restricting treatments. Harris’s approach, which would further centralize healthcare decisions, threatens to entrench this medical tyranny, where government dictates override individual choice and freedoms. The pandemic was a stark reminder of how quickly government overreach can strip away individual freedoms. Harris’s plan risks making tyranny the new norm in healthcare.
-
There is no such thing as free healthcare.
The promise of “free” healthcare is perhaps the most dangerous myth. Medicaid insurance, for example, may come at no charge to the patient, but it is extremely costly for taxpayers. Healthcare services provided by doctors, nurses, and therapists are not free—unless you believe in slavery, which no free society should. Harris’s Medicare for All proposal, which markets itself as being “free” at the point of service, conveniently ignores the enormous costs that would be imposed on taxpayers. Someone always pays. Under Harris’s plan, taxpayers would bear the massive financial burden of “free” services.
As Harris continues to advocate for Medicare for All, we must dismantle these myths. Doing so can shift the conversation from idealistic but unrealistic promises to practical, effective solutions that truly empower patients and respect the freedoms upon which this country was built. Only then can we hope to create a healthcare system that serves the people rather than expanding government control at the expense of individual choice, market efficiency, and even freedom itself.
Deane Waldman, M.D., MBA is Professor Emeritus of Pediatrics, Pathology, and Decision Science; former Director of Center for Healthcare Policy at Texas Public Policy Foundation; former Director of New Mexico Health Insurance Exchange; and author of 12 books, including multi-award winning, Curing the Cancer in U.S. Healthcare: StatesCare and Market-Based Medicine. Contact him at www.deanewaldman.com.
Vance Ginn, Ph.D., is president of Ginn Economic Consulting, host of the Let People Prosper Show, and previously chief economist of the Trump White House’s Office of Management and Budget. Follow him on X.com at @VanceGinn.
Image: Pixabay license.
Comments are closed.