Socialism is on the ballot in the midterm elections. Socialism candidates are running on the Democratic party ballot in Maine, Michigan, Texas, California, Florida and Washington to name just a few. Students of world history know that socialism has never worked in any country in the world, but the younger generations may be uninformed. The lies about socialism can be particularly deceiving when it comes to healthcare.

Take for example, Michigan senatorial candidate Abdul El-Sayed. He actually has a medical degree though he’s never practiced medicine. He wants you to believe his medical degree makes him qualified to judge healthcare systems. “Once you train in the sciences, you don’t leave that scientific approach to thinking and that rigor of thinking. And I try to bring that to policy problems,” El-Sayed told Scientific American. “You construct a hypothesis of the world and you test it . . . and then you’ll study the outcome of the intervention to see if it works.”

Allysia Finley, writing for The Wall Street Journal, says, “A drug maker would scrap an experimental medicine that fails to help patients and causes severe adverse effects. Mr. El-Sayed and his fellow Democrats want to rerun failed policy experiments at a higher dosage.”

Mr. El-Sayed and his socialist compatriots present “Medicare for all”—a euphemism for a single-payer system—as a healthcare nirvana. The Democratic candidate’s idealized system has no copays, deductibles, premiums or provider network. It promises free healthcare on demand from any doctor. Such a system doesn’t exist anywhere in the world.

Medicare requires premiums, co-pays and deductibles, and as Mr. El-Sayed acknowledged, “as it operates right now, there is some subcontracting to private companies.” About half of Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in privately administered Advantage plans, which are less expensive than traditional fee-for-service because insurers do a better job than the government of controlling waste and fraud. Democrats want to eliminate the Advantage program and move entirely to a fee-for-service system. If you like your Medicare plan, don’t expect to keep it.

Medicare for All is being promoted by all the socialist candidates. When first proposed by Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders it was rapidly dismissed as socialized medicine in disguise. But now it is being promoted as the solution to our current problems in the healthcare system created by the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare). This comes as no surprise since it was the long-term goal of the authors of ObamaCare to have a socialized medicine system eventually. ObamaCare was just a step in that direction.

But all socialized medicine systems in the world including Canada, Great Britain, Sweden, and others have two things in common; limited access to healthcare providers and rationed care. This means you wait longer to see a doctor and when you do you may be denied the care you need due to your age, disability, or other factors.

Finley confirms this is happening now. She says, “Most countries fund their government-run systems with payroll and value-added taxes, so that people pay for healthcare by having less disposable income. And by enduring delays. Government-run health systems are inefficient and stingy. Result: longer waits for appointments with procedures, if rationing bodies will even approve them.

About 17% of patients in the U.S. wait more than two months for an appointment with a specialist, which is significantly less than in socialized-medicine utopias like Canada (48%), France (45%) and the U.K. (43%). Government-run healthcare means less access, not more.”

The solution is not more government control of healthcare, it is less. As President Ronald Reagan once said, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the Government, and I’m here to help.”

This blog is generally about healthcare, but with the important midterm elections coming soon, I felt it necessary to make an exception in this case. “Affordability” has become a focal point of the election and I want to set the record straight so people can make an informed decision who they elect.

For those of you who do not read The Wall Street Journal, the editorial board just published an excellent article to address this issue called “The ‘Affordability’ Democrats? You Have to Be Kidding”. Read the entire article with this link or read my summary of the article below.

The editors say, “Democrats are trying to capitalize on voter frustration with inflation by running on “affordability.” Fair enough, but then let’s look at their record in power on the cost of living and what they propose if they win. Affordable by whom is the question. One basic measure is inflation, which captures the overall price level. The consumer price index increased on average 5% a year during the Biden Presidency, versus 1.9% during the first Trump term and 2.9% so far during the second.”

Both parties contributed to the initial burst of inflation during the Biden years with their spending splurge in late 2020. But Democrats in March 2021 fueled the fire with their $1.9 trillion spending blitz, largely for transfer payments and for states and localities. The Federal Reserve made the mistake of accommodating the spending binge. Yet as inflation heated up in 2021, Democrats urged the central bank not to raise interest rates.

The Biden team also relaxed mortgage underwriting standards, which enabled borrowers to qualify for bigger mortgages and turbocharged the surge in home prices. Housing prices rose 5.3% a year on average during the Biden years, compared to 2.7% during the first Trump term and 3.7% so far in the second.

It costs on average about 2.8 times as much to build an apartment in California as in Texas, according to the RAND Corp. Some “affordable” housing projects in the Golden State cost more than $1 million per unit to build. One reason is state and local prevailing wage mandates, which Democrats want to require for all projects that benefit from federal funds.

Democrats also want to raise the $7.25 an hour federal minimum wage to $15 or higher. Most Democratic-run states already impose minimum wages of at least $15 an hour, so this would mainly slam states with lower wage mandates, many of which have contested Senate races this year like Texas, Iowa and New Hampshire (all $7.25) and Ohio ($11). Businesses pass on higher wage costs to consumers to the extent they can.

Gasoline prices have shot up amid the war in Iran. But the inflation-adjusted average of $3.43 a gallon across the second Trump term is still lower than the $3.89 average in the Biden years. The average was $3.27 in the first Trump term.

Recall how the Biden Administration tried to restrict oil and gas production by cancelling leases in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, banning new offshore drilling in much of the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic coasts, and pausing leases on federal lands. The result: Higher prices.

Or consider the climate-policy utopia of California, where gasoline costs $6.37 a gallon and diesel $8.40. The state’s cap-and-tax program, low carbon fuel standard and hefty fuel taxes have driven up fuel prices and spurred refineries to shut down. Democrats now talk less about climate than during the Biden years, but their goal of banishing fossil fuels persists.

The editors conclude with these important points:

“So what are Democrats now proposing to improve affordability? More of the same policies—more spending on welfare and “affordable” housing, more green-energy subsidies, more healthcare regulation and higher minimum wages nationwide. Democrats claimed the Affordable Care Act would reduce healthcare costs. But that law’s command-and-control regulations drove industry consolidation and pushed up prices instead. Premiums for employer plans have roughly doubled since 2010, rising at about twice the rate of inflation.

As for tariffs, Joe Biden vowed in the 2020 campaign to repeal Mr. Trump’s first term border taxes but never did. You can’t believe Democrats will do so now, especially given that labor unions support many of the tariffs. Democrats also want to raise taxes on business, which would flow to consumers in higher prices.”

We all want prices to come down, but this thorough analysis by WSJ shows the Republican Party is doing a better job of lowering prices than Democrats did under Joe Biden. The Iran conflict has raised prices temporarily, but we should be glad to trade that for the security of knowing Iran is not going to get a nuclear weapon that everyone knows they would use to destroy The United States and Israel – the Great Satan and the Little Satan in their way of thinking. There is a price to pay for freedom.

It’s time for a little history of ObamaCare review. The Affordable Care Act, better known as ObamaCare, was passed in 2010 without a single Republican vote. This entirely Democratic restructuring of our healthcare system was promised to lower premiums for the average American family by $2500 at least by President Obama. He also promised “if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.” These promises and more never happened.

What did happen was for hospitals and insurance companies to grow by leaps and bounds. If you look around your city, you’ll probably note hospitals have built larger and larger buildings using the profits of this healthcare restructuring, thanks to Democrats.

Fast forward to 2026 and now these same Democrats are now selling themselves as the solution to the problem they created. The Wall Street Journal editorial board calls out Texas Democratic Senate hopeful James Talaric for his hypocrisy which was on display recently.

“Who knew Jesus was an antitrust lawyer? So sayeth Texas Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico who recently invoked his Lord and Savior in his campaign to “break up these big healthcare monopolies.” You have to chuckle at Democrats campaigning to crush the trusts they created. Mr. Talarico held an event with billionaire Mark Cuban in which he laid out a plan to break up vertically integrated healthcare companies. “Healthcare corporations are ripping us off—jacking up premiums and profiting off our pain,” he said. Later he suggested that breaking up the companies is what Jesus would do.”

Talarico fashions himself as an authority on the Bible, even though he once said, “God is non-binary.” I doubt he has any idea “what Jesus would do.” He goes on, ““Go back and see what Jesus spends most of his time doing. It’s not preaching, it’s not teaching, it’s healing,” Mr. Talarico said. “And that is going to be the end result of this plan.” 

The WSJ editors tell us the Senate hopeful cited reports claiming that 90% of U.S. hospital beds are controlled by large hospital systems, and three pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) process some 80% of prescriptions. Healthcare consolidation has increased and is driving up prices. But government policies, especially ObamaCare, have driven the consolidation.

Start with the 2010 law’s medical-loss ratio, which requires insurers to spend at least 80% to 85% of premium dollars on medical care. This drove insurers to combine with providers, PBMs and pharmacies, and to steer revenue to these affiliates to dodge this de facto profit cap. Senate Democrats admit as much in a recent healthcare white paper.

“Consolidation and vertical integration accelerated in the late 2010s as large for-profit insurers acquired providers, pharmacies, and PBMs,” the paper notes. The medical loss ratio “created unintended incentives for insurers to expand” into other markets “to maximize profits.”

A study this year by University of Chicago and Northwestern researchers found evidence that ObamaCare’s profit cap spurred insurers to combine with providers and shift profits to affiliates. The result: Higher prices and out-of-pocket costs for patients. The medical-loss ratio has also contributed to higher drug costs.

I have no doubt that ObamaCare has created these problems. But why would voters choose to vote for the same people who created this mess in the first place! That’s like calling the arsonists to put out the fire they started!

The WSJ editors say the solution to all this isn’t to break up the companies. It’s to repeal the regulations that prevent more market competition. Pressure from large employers is already prompting insurers and PBMs to move away from the rebate-model and increase transparency on fees.

ObamaCare also turbocharged consolidation among providers such that only 42% of physicians now work in private practice, compared to 60% in 2012. (Some surveys put that number above 70%.) Most physicians are now employed by large hospital or provider groups, often owned by private-equity firms. ObamaCare’s subsidies for so-called accountable care organizations increased the incentive for hospitals to acquire physician practices. The Medicaid expansion resulted in more nonprofit hospitals becoming eligible for the 340B program, which lets them buy medicines at large discounts and sell them at steep markups.

Also, the 340B program provides an incentive for nonprofit hospitals to expand to increase revenue from this government-created drug price arbitrage. Hospitals also receive higher reimbursements from Medicare and Medicaid than physician practices. That’s another incentive for physicians to link up with hospitals.

The WSJ editors explain, “Breaking up insurers would do nothing to fix the perverse regulatory incentives that fuel higher healthcare spending. It would merely give more leverage to giant hospitals, which are the biggest contributors to higher costs. Since 2010, hospital prices have increased at about twice the rate of inflation and three times as fast as prescription drug prices. The left’s ultimate goal for the dysfunctions caused by regulation is a single-payer system in which bureaucrats in Washington determine what treatments you can receive. If Mr. Talarico were honest, he’d acknowledge as much. That’s what Jesus would do.”