Adam Smith & US Healthcare: A Free Market Analysis
- More than 80% of Americans express dissatisfaction with their health insurance, citing high costs, increasing premiums, and coverage limitations.
- Though, individual needs are not the primary factor in escalating healthcare expenses.
- While MA insurance aimed to reduce healthcare costs, it has instead increased them by 22% per patient by 2024. The top five insurers have profited roughly $185 billion...
Explore the rising healthcare costs in the US and the debate surrounding a national health system as a solution. Many Americans are frustrated with their health insurance due to high costs, and the for-profit structure of healthcare facilities substantially contributes to the problem. A national healthcare system could offer better outcomes and broader coverage at a lower cost. Discover how this model compares to the existing system and how factors like insurance discontent are reshaping the healthcare landscape. News Directory 3 offers further insights into the complexities and potential benefits of a national health system. Discover what’s next for healthcare reform?
National Health System: A Solution for Rising Healthcare Costs?
Updated May 26, 2025
More than 80% of Americans express dissatisfaction with their health insurance, citing high costs, increasing premiums, and coverage limitations. Whether the insurance is government-provided, employer-sponsored, or commercially offered, individuals ultimately bear the financial burden through co-payments, deductibles, and premiums. Increased demand for specific treatments and tests further drives up these costs.
Though, individual needs are not the primary factor in escalating healthcare expenses. The for-profit structure of healthcare facilities and insurers, including Medicare advantage (MA) plans, plays a critically important role. Studies indicate that some hospitals inflate the severity of patient conditions to increase billing amounts.A 2019 review across five states revealed approximately $14.6 billion in overpayments resulting from this practice. Extrapolated to 2024, this figure would exceed $169 billion nationwide. MA insurers also inflate charges passed on to the federal government, either by exaggerating patient conditions or claiming additional, untreated diagnoses to receive higher payments for more complex cases. These inflated charges ultimately increase premiums for seniors and Medicare taxes for working individuals,impacting healthcare affordability.
While MA insurance aimed to reduce healthcare costs, it has instead increased them by 22% per patient by 2024. The top five insurers have profited roughly $185 billion annually between 2014 and 2024. Administrative expenses within MA plans contribute to significant waste, with an estimated $450 billion spent yearly due to varying forms and criteria among companies. This administrative overhead and fraudulent billing practices cost each citizen approximately $4,850 annually.
M. Bennet Broner, a medical ethicist, argues that entrusting basic medical care to underregulated, for-profit entities is incompatible with serving the public good. He points to instances where even religious-based hospital chains have diverted from caring for the needy, amassing large, unreported profits in offshore accounts. One chain was found to have concealed $41 billion without providing a clear explanation for the funds.
Broner suggests that the U.S. stands alone among modern nations in maintaining a mercenary medical system where a select few profit from the illness and suffering of many. Even developing countries with struggling economies recognize the necessity of government-managed medical systems. Decades of minor adjustments to the existing healthcare system have proven ineffective,prompting experts like Donald Berwick and Stephen Woolf to advocate for a systemic change.
Broner proposes adopting a national health care system (NHS), potentially combining national elements with heavily regulated for-profit organizations, to ensure fair and equitable access to basic care for all citizens. While acknowledging potential limitations such as funding shortages, rising costs, and personnel shortages, he emphasizes that these issues already plague the current commodified healthcare system. Despite spending 2.5 times more per patient than other developed nations, the U.S. receives lower quality service.
Despite potential drawbacks, national systems offer better health outcomes, broader population coverage, and increased average longevity at a significantly lower cost. In recent international rankings, the U.S. ranked 16th in healthcare quality among developed nations and 96th in healthy life expectancy and health coverage compared to both developed and less-developed countries. The average lifespan in first-world nations and countries with struggling economies exceeds the U.S.average by 6.3 years, despite having less modern and available healthcare.
What’s next
The debate over healthcare reform continues,with proponents of a national health system arguing for it’s potential to improve access,affordability,and quality of care. Further discussion and policy changes are needed to address the systemic issues within the U.S. healthcare landscape.