While healthcare can be more efficiently delivered in the U.S., it is my opinion that government should not be the exclusive means of doing so. Government is inefficient and wasteful. Free enterprise encourages and rewards efficiency and innovation. This applies to healthcare. For instance, in 1960 when most healthcare was privately delivered and paid for the average cost of a hospital stay was $32 per day. The average daily cost of a hospital stay in the U.S. is about $3,086 in 2026. (AI and nchs) Adjusting the 1960 dollar to its 2026 inflated value, the cost should still be only be $355.00 and not $3,086.
Total national healthcare and related (e.g., public health and health research) expenditures were $2.5 trillion, or $8,100 per person, in 2009. (National Review Magazine, May 25, 2009.) Fifteen years later, in 2024, the national cost for healthcare was $5.28 trillion, or $15,474 per person. (Sources: AI and Peterson Center on Healthcare, Peterson-KFF HealthSystem tracker, at healthsystemtracker.org, “How has U.S. spending on healthcare changed over time?” (Jan. 22, 2026).)
Compared with countries having fully-socialized medicine, in rounded 2024 U.S. dollars, health consumption expenditures per person totaled $15,000 in the U.S.; $10,000 in Switzerland; $7,300 in Canada; and $6,800 in Great Britain. (Id., Peterson Center, “How does health spending in the U.S compare to other countries?” (March 11, 2026).)
In socialized countries, national healthcare insurance is not uniform. But the coverage is “universal,” meaning that it is exclusive and restrictive. There is no private health insurance and limited private healthcare. Canada and Great Britain’s publicly funded healthcare systems are often compared with the United States. Reports on Canada’s system, called Medicare, and Britain’s, called the National Health Service (NHS), show their healthcare not readily accessible. The two principal reasons: long wait times to receive care and strict restrictions on private care.
These are demonstrated in articles about England’s system: “Elderly impacted by NHS backlog crisis,” The Telegraph, at telegraph.co.uk (Nov. 26, 2025); “Half of disability claimants would swap £1,000 of benefits for help,” The Times of London, at thetimes.com (Aug. 16, 2026); “Fears of cancer care delays as quarter of GP [general practitioner] referrals rejected [by specialists],” The Time of London, at thetimes.com (Aug. 17, 2026); and “Doctors turn away millions of patients as NHS shows strain,” The Times of London, at thetimes.com (Aug. 18, 2026).
For Canada’s system, there is a landmark court case, Chaoulli v. Quebec, 335 N.R. 25 (SCC 2005). (Note: I did no detailed legal research on the decision or the law in that country.) There, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the government of the Province of Quebec, with exclusive control of providing medical services, was jeopardizing Canadians’ constitutional rights to healthcare. The court “weighed the rights of patients to seek timely care and of physicians to provide it [Dr. Chaoulli was a plaintiff] against the requirements of a socialized healthcare system, such as in Canada. It found that inordinate waiting times for healthcare services and laws prohibiting private medical insurance and services “could arguably impact a person’s right to life, liberty, and security.” (As summarized in The Canadian Encyclopedia entry, “Chaoulli v. Quebec,” by Taylor C. Noakes (Nov. 27, 2023).
Remarkably, “[t]he ruling only pertains to the province of Quebec, though three [of the court’s] justices determined that the same laws violated a section of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.” (Id.) This is like saying the U.S. Bill of Rights applies only to New York. (Also see, “Americans are more likely [than Canadians] to report that they are satisfied with the healthcare services they have received and to rank the quality of care as excellent,” National Bureau of Economic Research, “Comparing the U.S. and Canadian Healthcare Systems,” at nber.org (Oct. 18, 2011).)
“Healthcare in the United States is largely a private system, through employer-sponsored plans from private insurance companies. The U.S. does offer universal healthcare through special programs for certain segments of the population with special needs, such as Medicare for seniors age 65 or older, Medicaid for low-income individuals under age 65, TRICARE for past and present military members and their families. For this reason, the U.S. system of healthcare is often called a mixed system.” (Encyclopedia Britannica, at britannica.com/procon/universal-health-care-debate; internal references omitted.)
“Universal healthcare is an umbrella term for a system that provides medical services regardless of ability to pay. It is paid with income tax revenue. Single-payer health care is a type of universal care under which service providers may be public or private healthcare facilities, but care is free at the point of service. It is so-called because only one entity (the federal government) pays for the health services. It is contrary to a multi-payer system in which various entities (e.g., employers, individuals, or private insurance companies) pay for the healthcare. It eliminates private insurance companies. The United Kingdom, Spain, New Zealand, and Cuba have single-payer systems.” (Id., internal citations omitted.)
Our basic human needs include food, clothing, and shelter. Also basic, as a matter of reason, is the need for good health. This does not mean that government provide them; rather, that it provides an economy where they are accessible.
In my opinion, it is dishonest to claim that healthcare is a right that should be singularly operated and delivered by the government. Owning a car is a “right,” but public transportation is an option. Just as if everyone were required to use government provided transportation, or worse, government-built cars serviced by government-run repair shops, a universal healthcare single-payer system in the U.S. would limit personal freedom and opportunity.
Access to healthcare, like access to transportation, should never be restricted to one system imposed on everyone. Were it ever so, our world would be dark and grey, just like the color of the uniforms we’d eventually be wearing. (See those styles modeled by the leadership of China and North Korea.)
Chip Williams is a Northsider.
