The recent assassination of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in New York City has sparked controversy and uproar across various online communities, particularly among progressives. Many took to social media to express a disturbing level of satisfaction regarding Thompson’s death, suggesting that he received what he deserved for the health care denied to the poor and working class by his company. This reaction highlighted a broader narrative around the failures of the U.S. healthcare system, with some framing the killing as a form of self-defense by the oppressed classes. This misguided understanding perpetuates a belief that a complete lack of government regulation leaves wealthy CEOs to impose exorbitant fees, substandard treatment, and unaccountability on their customers. However, this characterization is fundamentally flawed and obscures the reality of deep government involvement in the American healthcare system.
Contrary to the popular belief among progressives that the healthcare industry is free from regulation, it is, in fact, one of the most heavily scrutinized sectors in the U.S., alongside finance and energy. Government entities are entrenched in every aspect of healthcare, from drug production and medical education to hospital construction and health insurance availability. This level of interaction isn’t new; government intervention has been a chronic issue for over a century, with progressives playing a pivotal role in fostering such an environment. For instance, the American Medical Association (AMA) strategically established accreditation standards for medical schools, effectively sidelining competing medical practices and creating a shortage of trained doctors. This shift resulted in rising costs for medical services, a trend that would become painfully recognizable over the following decades.
Further complicating the landscape, post-World War II developments shifted the narrative around health insurance. Under President Truman, the IRS initiated tax deductions for employer-provided health insurance while disregarding other payment approaches. This change led to employer health plans surpassing traditional insurance models and morphed health payment systems into mechanisms that diluted the true function of insurance. This became increasingly problematic as the 1960s rolled around, with the establishment of Medicare and Medicaid—a further intervention that initially faced opposition from medical groups but ultimately enriched those same stakeholders. An influx of government subsidies alongside restrictive supply policies resulted in demand outpacing supply, fueling sharply rising costs that left millions without affordable healthcare options.
This environment of escalating healthcare costs deteriorated into a crisis, a situation exacerbated by the fact that, while medical insurance should serve to mitigate unpredictable risks, it increasingly covered routine medical services. The intertwining of government subsidies with insurance plans allowed providers to inflate prices unchecked while solidifying consumers’ reliance on insurance amidst rising costs for essential services. This scenario proved advantageous for insurance and healthcare providers, creating a cycle that benefitted corporations at the expense of patients. However, this façade of wealth and security began to falter when, in the early 2000s, the number of insured individuals began to decline, signaling a need for intervention as financial pressures mounted against both consumers and providers.
In response to the deteriorating situation, the Affordable Care Act (ACA), often termed Obamacare, was introduced as a comprehensive measure to revitalize the healthcare sector. This legislation mandated that uninsured Americans acquire insurance, simultaneously broadening insurance coverage mandates. While initially perceived as a solution to the healthcare crisis, numerous economists had cautioned that the ACA would lead to an increase in premiums and an even deeper affordability crisis. Unfortunately, these predictions bore fruit, as the demand for healthcare surged once more, intensifying existing shortages of both resources and medical professionals and ultimately pushing prices to unprecedented levels.
Today, the repercussions of decades of progressive policies in healthcare have culminated in a troubling landscape where costs are soaring, and many providers remain insulated from accountability. The market now grapples with an overwhelming demand for services against a dwindling supply, exacerbated by the very systems established to provide care. The irony remains that despite massive financial input into the healthcare system, many Americans are facing deteriorating health outcomes. This predicament is one of the most critical challenges that America faces, demanding a fundamental reevaluation of existing policies and practices within the healthcare sector.
The persistent failure of progressives to acknowledge their role in the evolution of the currently broken healthcare system highlights a troubling trend within American political discourse. Rather than engaging with the intricate realities of healthcare economics, many progressives prefer to vilify executives like Brian Thompson, who appear to emerge as symbols of a corrupted system. This narrative not only misrepresents the true dynamics at play but fosters an environment that vilifies individuals while ignoring the systematic issues that have been perpetuated over decades. To reverse this cycle, it is imperative to recognize and learn from those who have accurately diagnosed these issues, rather than lending credence to narratives that celebrate violence and disregard the historical context of regulatory failure.