Guest opinion: The high costs of single-payer health care

Recently, Wendell Potter, a former health insurance executive who left the industry in 2008 and now advocates for a government-run health care system, made waves in Utah media. Since departing from the industry, Mr. Potter has been a "Johnny One-Note," insisting that the government should take over and that consumers should be deprived of the benefits of competition and choice in their health care decisions.

Potter is not alone. Dr. Joe Jarvis has also been a vocal proponent of universal health care in Utah. He is leading efforts to introduce a ballot initiative aimed at establishing a single-payer health care system within the state. Common Sense Health Care for Utah also advocates for a comprehensive single-payer health care plan. Their mission is to extend coverage to every Utahn, ensuring equitable access to medical services and reducing the financial burdens associated with health care costs.

While their talking points may sound good on paper, their recommendation of socializing health care will only worsen the health care affordability crisis that Utahans currently face.

Utah's health care affordability crisis is indeed a pressing concern. A 2024 report highlighted that health care spending has increased by nearly 20% in the state, posing significant financial challenges for both employees and small business owners who struggle to keep up with escalating premiums and out-of-pocket expenses. The question is not whether Utahns are facing difficulties affording care but rather how best to address these challenges without resorting to a costly, inefficient government takeover of the health care system.

Every country, including the United States, has problems with its health care system. While our system can be expensive, we don't suffer from the maladies common in the rest of the world — waitlists, poor care, limited technological advancement and high prices. Mr. Potter's critique of private insurers misses a fundamental reality — competition and market dynamics drive innovation and efficiency.

While the U.S. health care system is far from perfect, private insurers — when adequately regulated — create incentives for cost control and improved services. In contrast, single-payer systems often operate as monopolies, stifling innovation and leading to care rationing.

For example, the National Health Service in the United Kingdom suffers from delays for routine critical procedures. According to a 2023 report by the British Medical Association, over 7.5 million people were on NHS waiting lists, with many waiting months or even years for treatment. Potter's proposals would import this kind of inefficiency into the United States.

Government-run systems are not immune to rising costs, either. Socialized medicine advocates like Mr. Potter often point to administrative expenses in the private sector as a driver of health care costs, yet they fail to account for the significant bureaucratic overhead in public systems.

A recent study found that the government-run Canadian system was the most expensive among 30 universal health care countries. Canada had some of the fewest physicians (ranked 28th of 30 countries), hospital beds (ranked 23rd of 29) and diagnostic technology such as MRIs (ranking 25th of 29 countries) and CT scanners (ranking 26th out of 30 countries) compared to other high-income countries with universal health care. Canada also recorded the longest-ever delay for nonemergency care at 27.7 weeks, a 198% increase from the 9.3-week wait experienced in 1993 (the first year national estimates were published). This is hardly a model worth emulating.

According to a study by the Mercatus Center, implementing a Medicare-for-All program in the U.S. would cost an estimated $32 trillion over 10 years. This would necessitate substantial tax increases, including on middle-class families. Meanwhile, a single-payer system would eliminate consumers' ability to choose their insurers and potentially their providers, forcing everyone into a one-size-fits-all plan.

Finally, Mr. Potter's portrayal of single-payer systems as universally equitable ignores the reality of rationed care and inequities within those systems. Wealthier people in countries like Canada and the U.K. often bypass public queues by seeking private care domestically or abroad. This creates a two-tiered system that undermines the egalitarian ideals proponents of single-payer health care claim to uphold.

Mr. Potter's call for a government-run health care system is not the panacea he portrays it to be. While private insurers are not without flaws, their competitive pressures drive innovation, efficiency and quality in ways government-run systems cannot replicate. The path to a better health care system is embracing market-driven reforms that empower consumers, promote innovation and ensure access to high-quality care. Sacrificing choice and competition for the false promises of a single-payer system would be a step backward, not forward.

Ryan Smith is the former chairman for the Utah College Republicans.