Why America’s Healthcare Debate Is Fundamentally Wrong, And Why a Singapore-Style System Is the Only Sustainable Path Forward

For more than a decade, Americans have been told there are only two serious healthcare options:

• The Affordable Care Act

• Medicare for All

  
  

One is framed as “market-based compassion.” The other as “universal moral clarity.” Both are presented as inevitable. Both are defended with projections. Both promise affordability.

And both quietly fail the same test: They make healthcare more expensive over time by structurally increasing national debt, inflation, and unfunded liabilities.

There is a third model, one that works in the real world, across decades, not just political cycles. It lowers costs, reduces debt, protects the poor, strengthens retirement security, and preserves freedom. That model is not discussed seriously in the U.S. for a reason. This article explains why.

The Healthcare Debate Americans Are Never Allowed to Have

Before comparing systems, we need to understand the core deception underlying the U.S. healthcare debate. Healthcare policy is rarely discussed as macroeconomic policy, even though healthcare now consumes nearly one-fifth of the entire U.S. economy. That omission is not accidental.

When healthcare is treated as a moral issue alone, cost discipline disappears. When it is treated as a fiscal issue alone, human consequences disappear. A sustainable system must do both: protect citizens from medical catastrophe and prevent healthcare from destroying national finances. Neither the ACA nor Medicare for All does this.

Option 1: The Affordable Care Act, Coverage Without Cost Control

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) was sold as a pragmatic middle ground: Expand coverage, preserve private insurance, and control costs through competition and subsidies. What actually happened?

ACA’s Core Design Flaw

The ACA expanded access without fixing price formation. Insurance companies were guaranteed customers. Hospitals were guaranteed payment. Pharmaceutical companies faced minimal price pressure. When costs rose faster than projected, the federal government filled the gap with:

• Higher subsidies

• Larger deficits

• Long-term debt

  
  

ACA’s Real-World Outcomes

Over time, ACA markets evolved in predictable ways:

• Premiums rose sharply

• Deductibles increased

• Narrow networks became common

• Subsidies ballooned beyond original projections

  
  

Coverage increased, but affordability deteriorated, especially for:

• Middle-income workers

• Small business owners

• Early retirees

  
  

The ACA did not eliminate medical bankruptcies. It merely changed who paid and when.

ACA and National Debt

Every time ACA projections missed reality, Congress chose debt over reform. That debt:

• Increased federal interest payments

• Contributed to persistent inflation

• Raised borrowing costs across the economy

  
  

Mortgages. Auto loans. Student loans. Healthcare inflation became economy-wide inflation.

Option 2: Medicare for All, Universal Coverage, Unlimited Fiscal Risk

Medicare for All is often presented as the humane alternative to ACA failures. The promise is simple: “No premiums. No deductibles. No medical bankruptcies.” The cost is rarely discussed honestly.

Medicare for All’s Central Assumption

Medicare for All assumes:

• Government projections will be accurate

• Political discipline will hold

• Future Congresses will control spending

  
  

That assumption is not supported by history. In fact, it is contradicted by every large federal entitlement program ever created.

Fiscal Reality of Medicare for All

Medicare for All does not reduce healthcare costs; it moves them onto the federal balance sheet. That means:

• Massive tax increases

• Or massive new debt

• Or both

  
  

Unlike the ACA, where risk is shared, Medicare for All concentrates 100% of risk on taxpayers. If costs exceed projections, and they will, there is no pressure valve.

Inflation and Interest Rates

Financing Medicare for All through debt would:

• Increase Treasury issuance

• Push interest rates higher

• Weaken the dollar’s purchasing power

  
  

Inflation would not be a side effect. It would be a structural feature. The result: lower real wages, higher cost of living, and reduced retirement security. Future generations would inherit liabilities they never consented to.

The False Choice: Why ACA vs Medicare for All Is a Trap

Despite fierce political disagreement, the ACA and Medicare for All share three fatal similarities:

• They rely on projections

• They socialize cost overruns

• They reward volume, not value

  
  

When projections fail:

• ACA → higher premiums + subsidies + debt

• Medicare for All → higher taxes + debt

  
  

In both cases, citizens lose purchasing power quietly through inflation. This is not reform. It is delayed taxation.

The Model Americans Are Never Shown: A Singapore-Style System

There is a healthcare system that:

• Delivers universal coverage

• Costs dramatically less

• Produces better outcomes

• Strengthens household savings

• Reduces long-term government liabilities

  
  

That system exists in Singapore. Its success is not ideological. It is structural.

Core Principles of the Singapore Model

Singapore’s healthcare system is built on four pillars:

1. Universal catastrophic coverage

2. Mandatory personal health savings

3. Strict price transparency and controls

4. Targeted subsidies for the vulnerable

   
   

Instead of promising unlimited care, the system pre-funds healthcare needs. This single distinction changes everything.

How the Singapore Model Actually Works

1. Universal Catastrophic Coverage

   
   

Every citizen is protected against:

• Major illness

• Trauma

• Cancer

• Extended hospitalization

  
  

No one goes bankrupt from healthcare. This addresses the moral imperative without distorting everyday incentives.

1. Personal Health Savings Accounts

   
   

Workers contribute a portion of income into mandatory healthcare savings accounts. These accounts:

• Belong to the individual

• Accumulate over time

• Can be used for routine care

• Carry into retirement

  
  

Healthcare spending becomes visible, not abstract.

1. Price Transparency and Controls

   
   

Unlike the U.S., Singapore:

• Publishes hospital prices

• Caps procedure costs

• Negotiates drug pricing aggressively

  
  

Competition occurs on quality and efficiency, not billing complexity.

1. Targeted Government Support

   
   

Low-income, unemployed, disabled, and elderly citizens receive:

• Fully funded contributions

• Additional subsidies

• Guaranteed access

  
  

No one is left behind, without subsidizing inefficiency.

Why Incentives Matter More Than Ideology

Healthcare systems fail or succeed based on incentives, not intentions.

System	Who Bears Cost Overruns
ACA	Taxpayers (indirectly)
Medicare for All	Taxpayers (directly)
Singapore Model	System participants (shared & capped)

In the Singapore model:

• Providers face price discipline

• Patients see real costs

• Government liabilities are capped

  
  

This is why costs stay low without rationing.

Impact by Income Group (U.S. Adaptation)

Unemployed & Low-Income

• Fully subsidized accounts

• No medical bankruptcies

• Better access than ACA

• Less stigma than welfare-based care

  
  

Middle-Income Workers

• Lower lifetime healthcare costs

• Portable savings

• No premium shocks

• Stronger retirement security

  
  

High-Income Earners

• Higher contributions

• Lower taxes than Medicare for All

• Asset accumulation instead of sunk costs

  
  

Elderly

• Larger accumulated balances

• Lower Medicare burden

• Reduced unfunded liabilities

  
  

Ten-Year Fiscal Impact Comparison

National Debt

• ACA: +$1–3 trillion

• Medicare for All: +$10–15 trillion

• Singapore-Style: –$1 to –$3 trillion

  
  

Medical Bankruptcies

• ACA: Reduced but persistent

• Medicare for All: Eliminated

• Singapore-Style: Eliminated

  
  

Household Savings

• ACA: Declining

• Medicare for All: Neutral

• Singapore-Style: Strongly positive

  
  

Unfunded Liabilities

• ACA: Growing

• Medicare for All: Explosive

• Singapore-Style: Shrinking

  
  

Inflation, Taxes, and the Cost of Living

Healthcare debt is inflationary. When government borrowing rises:

• Interest rates increase

• Dollar purchasing power falls

• Housing becomes less affordable

• Education becomes more expensive

  
  

ACA and Medicare for All both increase structural inflation. The Singapore model does the opposite:

• Lower debt

• Lower inflation

• Lower interest rates

  
  

This is how living standards rise, quietly and sustainably.

Winners and Losers (The Part No One Says Out Loud)

ACA & Medicare for All Winners

• Healthcare lobbyists

• Large insurers (ACA)

• Large hospital systems

• Pharmaceutical companies

• Politicians who promise benefits today

  
  

ACA & Medicare for All Losers

• Middle-class families

• Young workers

• Future generations

• Retirees on fixed incomes

  
  

Singapore-Style Model Winners

• Citizens

• Workers

• Small businesses

• Future generations

  
  

Singapore-Style Model Losers

• Rent-seeking intermediaries

• Opaque pricing systems

• Politicians who rely on debt-funded promises

  
  

This is why the model is ignored.

The Moral Argument No One Makes

True compassion is not promising benefits without paying for them. True compassion is:

• Preventing inflation from eroding wages

• Preventing debt from enslaving future citizens

• Preventing healthcare from consuming the economy

  
  

A system that protects today’s patients by harming tomorrow’s families is not moral. It is shortsighted.

Why America Hasn’t Adopted This Model

The Singapore-style system threatens powerful interests. It:

• Reduces billing complexity

• Limits price manipulation

• Shrinks government leverage

• Builds individual independence

  
  

That makes it politically inconvenient, not impractical.

The Bottom Line

America does not need:

• More promises

• More debt

• More complexity

  
  

It needs better incentives. The ACA failed because it expanded access without controlling costs. Medicare for All would fail because it concentrates risk without discipline.

A Singapore-style system works because it:

• Pre-funds care

• Aligns incentives

• Protects the vulnerable

• Preserves freedom

• Strengthens the nation

  
  

This is not radical. It is responsible. And it is long overdue.

About Rare Sense America

At Rare Sense America, we believe real reform starts with honesty about costs, incentives, and consequences. Healthcare reform is not about left vs right. It is about math vs denial. And math always wins.

Read the healthcare pillar 2 - We the People Healthcare Act

Pillar 2

Read the other healthcare-related blogs

Healthcare Blogs

Join the revolution

Join the Revolution