Over the past six Turncoat editions, I’ve argued in favor of particularly controversial far-right positions — ranging from a defense of the First Amendment rights of Holocaust deniers to denying the applicability of equal protection rights to the LGBTQ community. Far from triggering, my aim in writing these opinions was to demystify extremist ideologies that often misrepresent political parties on the whole. As I wrote in a Turncoat column last year, “I hope it is clear that the arguments I present are not a representation of my own ideas; they are quite the opposite, in fact.”  More to the point, “My continuing aim in the column is to force myself outside of my beliefs to attempt to understand the differing views held by others.”

But it would be inherently contradictory to my purpose to pretend that the Republican party harbors all of America’s extreme ideas. That is why, for this edition of Turncoat, I will be assuming an adamantly liberal perspective: advocating for universal healthcare, with full abolition of the private system, which has been supported by various Democratic presidential candidates, including Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. 

Thus far, the Democratic presidential debates have been defined, and the stage divided, by the candidates’ plans for the private healthcare system. While the candidates generally agree that universal healthcare, also known as Medicare-for-All, is an ideal goal, the argument of a single-payer system vs. a public option may be more heated than gun control, foreign policy, or fiscal ideology. Candidates who support a single-payer system want mandatory participation in public healthcare for all citizens — effectively eliminating the private insurance industry. Those who support the public option want to merely offer public healthcare, while maintaining a partially privatized system for citizens with ongoing employment benefits. 

This divide is ripping the Democratic party apart at the seams. With the election looming and the future of our country in the balance, it is imperative for the Democrats to unite–from candidates to voters–under a defensible plan. As a new voter, I’ll be doing my part, learning about the merits of universal healthcare and the single-payer system, and trying to understand the viewpoint of the extreme left. Without further ado, please enjoy.

Government-provided healthcare began in the late 1800s with the Progressive movement, but floundered until the 1939 Wagner Bill was passed under the FDR administration. This was the beginning of the “welfare state,” which, though it often carries a negative connotation, simply refers to a government’s increased spending on the health and well-being of its citizenry. 

Since then, the universal healthcare movement has faced its share of obstacles, from the anti-Communism sentiment of the Cold War to the growth of union benefits post-WWII. Universal healthcare has, however, expanded — slowly, but surely — through Social Security and, eventually, through the provision of benefits to the underprivileged and dependents. The political pendulum has undoubtedly swung to the left with respect to Medicare, the federal government program that provides healthcare coverage for seniors, with even President Trump supporting a limited nationalized healthcare. Due to his inability to successfully “repeal and replace” the Affordable Care Act, also called Obamacare, the President has instead helped to initiate a series of measures to dis-incentivize preventative care. 

This, however, couldn’t be farther from what the country currently needs.  The United States needs to support the health of its citizens, it needs to protect the welfare of those who can’t afford to protect themselves, and it needs universal healthcare — now. This can be accomplished through no means other an immediate overhaul of America’s healthcare system: the repealing of Trump’s recent legislation and the addition of comprehensive coverage to Obamacare. 

The United States is one of the few high-income countries without universal healthcare, and early adopters of the system, like Germany, Sweden, and Finland, are leaving our country in the dust on the issue. Rather than keeping pace with the majority of the western world, our government’s healthcare is lumped into the same category as war-torn Somalia and South Sudan, the country with the lowest standard of living in the world. Even Yemen, amidst the largest health crisis in the world, offers free healthcare to its citizens. 

That is not to say, of course, that the United States is necessarily on par with such countries. It simply means that our country is undeniably behind by First World standards. Our per capita healthcare costs are more than double those of Switzerland, Germany, and France, and Finland has nearly 10% more of its citizens insured than the United States. The implementation of universal healthcare would ultimately lower the cost of healthcare administration and medicine, and increase the level of coverage for working-class people with limited benefits. It would increase general health which, in other cases, has ultimately increased productivity, benefitting both the economy and the employers. Most importantly, though, it would offer equity to the American people.

But, while these statistics sound great, the immediate rebuttals are the following: (1) the price, and the ensuing increase in taxes; (2) the scale difference, with the US population dwarfing that of most European countries; and (3) the potential diminution in the quality of healthcare. Each of these arguments is rebuttable. First, though Republicans like to claim that such legislation would “double income tax,” current estimations show only a 2-3% increase on taxable income earnings below $500,000 per year. Rather than weighing on the shoulders of workers, the increased tax instead would be placed on employers, with a roughly 5-6% increase on employer income.

This statistic also disproves the second point, as the greater burden of paying for 320 million insureds is shared among nearly 156 million workers. To quote the cliche, “many hands make light work.” And, in regard to the quality of healthcare, that could be solved simply. In the past, the Canadian healthcare system, which is free and universal, has attracted American doctors, who can focus on providing medical care, rather than administrative roles relating to patient finances. The United States, which already has one of the highest doctor per capita levels at 2.6 per 1000 people, could attract foreign doctors, decrease wait times, and increase the overall quality of coverage.

With that said, the implementation of the single-payer system needs to counteract the inherent wealth bias and class discrimination in our country. As long as the private system exists, the bias will endure. The construction of a universal system is a question of economics, but the construction of a single-payer system is a question of humanity. When the healthcare movement started, it was supported by muckrakers and labor reformists because the capitalistic system failed to protect the individual from the monopolies. It continues today because the Republican-perpetuated healthcare system is selectively ignorant of the poor and dependent. But, even with a full systemic overhaul, the bias will fester, and the presence of the private system will host the virus. As long as healthcare, the maintenance or improvement of health, is provided according to wealth, the bias will suppurate. 

A single-payer system is pricey, yes –pricier than a public option. Class discrimination, however, is even costlier. It establishes the rights of American in accordance with their wealth, it restricts the rights of  Americans to those who can afford it, and it’s why the wealthiest 1% hold more wealth than the bottom 90%. The single-payer system is less about politics than it is people. It’s the only way for America to access healthcare. It’s the only way to end the bias.