We the People Healthcare Act: Revolutionizing American Healthcare, Chart Comparisons Across Systems for Diverse Citizens
- Jeremy Black
- Dec 27, 2025
- 5 min read
In our ongoing series on Pillar 2, the Singapore-inspired We the People healthcare reform, we've explored its core mechanics, transition plan, and day-to-day impacts. We've also compared it broadly to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and Medicare for All (M4A). Now, to provide even more clarity, let's zoom in on chart-based comparisons. We'll evaluate how each system, Pillar 2 (We the People Healthcare Act, via American Health Savings Trio: PHA, CCP, EAF), ACA, and M4A, performs for three representative citizen types utilizing healthcare services.
These types draw from our earlier "year in the life" scenarios:
Low-Income Single Parent (e.g., 32-year-old with two kids, $35K income, moderate chronic condition like asthma, routine dental needs).
Middle-Income Family (e.g., couple in their 40s, $90K combined income, one with diabetes, family dental including orthodontics).
High-Income Senior (e.g., 68-year-old, $200K pension, heart condition, needs major dental like dentures).
For each type, we'll use a comparison chart (presented as a markdown table for clarity) across key metrics: Annual Costs (out-of-pocket + premiums/taxes, estimates based on average utilization), Access to Care (wait times, provider choice), Coverage Quality (including dental, preventive, chronic care), Flexibility/Choice (portability, customization), and Overall Benefits/Risks (empowerment, equity, potential drawbacks). Assumptions are based on current data, Singapore's outcomes, and projections for M4A—real-world variations apply.
These charts highlight Pillar 2's balanced approach: Lower costs than ACA for most, more choice than M4A, and built-in equity. Dental is emphasized, as it's integrated in Pillar 2 but often limited elsewhere.
Chart 1: Low-Income Single Parent Utilizing Healthcare-We the People healthcare Act
This demographic often faces high utilization (e.g., kid's checkups, asthma management, dental cleanings, occasional ER visits). Underutilization due to costs is common in the current system.
Metric | Pillar 2 (Singapore Model) | ACA (Obamacare) | Medicare for All (M4A) |
Annual Costs | ~$500-1,000 (subsidized PHA contributions ~$1,400/year, but government matches/seeds cover most; CCP premiums waived; EAF handles gaps. Dental/medical deductibles from PHA, no surprises via app). | ~$2,000-4,000 (subsidized premiums ~$100/month; high deductibles $1,500+; Medicaid expansion helps, but copays add up. Dental often extra $300-500/year). | ~$1,000-2,000 (no premiums/copays, but higher taxes ~3-5% on low incomes; full coverage including dental, no out-of-pocket). |
Access to Care | Excellent: Short waits at subsidized clinics; app books same-day. Preventive/dental free incentives reduce ER overuse. | Good but variable: Medicaid networks limit providers; longer waits in underserved areas. Dental access spotty without add-ons. | Very good: Universal, no networks, but potential waits if demand surges (e.g., Canada-like for specialists). Dental improved but could face backlogs. |
Coverage Quality | Comprehensive: PHA for routine/asthma meds/dental; CCP for ER/surgeries; EAF safety net. Preventive focus cuts chronic flares. | Solid for basics via Medicaid, but gaps in dental/vision; prior authorizations delay chronic care. | Excellent: All-inclusive (medical/dental/chronic), no exclusions; strong preventive emphasis. |
Flexibility/Choice | High: Portable PHA across jobs; choose providers with subsidies. Family sharing for kids' needs. | Moderate: Tied to income/employment; narrow networks restrict choices. Dental plans vary. | Low: Standardized benefits; no private options for core care, limiting customization. |
Overall Benefits/Risks | Empowers savings buildup; equity via EAF prevents debt. Risk: Initial adjustment to mandatory savings (mitigated by subsidies). Big win: No poverty traps from bills. | Benefits access expansion, but risks surprise costs/network issues. Dental neglect common, leading to health complications. | Maximizes equity/no debt; risks tax hikes and potential rationing. Ideal for high-needs but less personal control. |
Key Takeaway for This Type: Pillar 2 offers the best cost-access balance, turning healthcare from a burden into a manageable asset. ACA helps but leaves gaps; M4A eliminates costs but at higher systemic taxes.
Chart 2: Middle-Income Family Utilizing Healthcare
This group has moderate-to-high utilization (e.g., diabetes management, family dental like braces, preventive screenings, minor surgeries). Job changes and family needs add complexity.
Metric | Pillar 2 (Singapore Model) | ACA (Obamacare) | Medicare for All (M4A) |
Annual Costs | ~$2,000-4,000 (PHA contributions ~$5,400/year, growing with interest; CCP $1,200/year; deductibles from savings. Dental integrated, saving $500+). | ~$4,000-8,000 (premiums $5,400/year average; deductibles $3,000+; subsidies fade at cliffs. Dental add-on $600/year). | ~$3,000-5,000 (no direct costs, but taxes rise 4-7% on mid-incomes; full dental/chronic coverage). |
Access to Care | Strong: Market incentives for quick service; app compares prices. Dental/preventive encouraged, reducing diabetes complications. | Moderate: Marketplace plans vary; networks cause out-of-network fees. Waits for specialists common. | Good: Broad access, but risks longer queues for non-emergencies. Dental access universal but potentially strained. |
Coverage Quality | Robust: PHA for diabetes meds/dental braces; CCP for surgeries; portable for job switches. Preventive bonuses improve outcomes. | Adequate: Covers chronic but with copays; dental often limited, leading to separate plans. | Superior: Seamless chronic/dental integration; no hassles, but uniform standards. |
Flexibility/Choice | Excellent: Shop with PHA funds; private supplements for extras. Family portability key for dual earners. | Limited: Employer-tied or marketplace networks; changing plans disruptive. | Minimal: One plan fits all; no tailoring beyond basics. |
Overall Benefits/Risks | Builds wealth via PHA; choice empowers value-seeking. Risk: Higher personal responsibility (offset by growth). Win: No cliffs, stable during life changes. | Benefits subsidies, but risks affordability cliffs and bureaucracy. Dental fragmentation adds hassle. | Eliminates bills; risks higher taxes and less innovation from private sector. Great for security, less for personalization. |
Key Takeaway for This Type: Pillar 2 shines in flexibility and long-term savings, ideal for families balancing careers and health. ACA is workable but clunky; M4A simplifies but reduces options.
Chart 3: High-Income Senior Utilizing Healthcare
High utilization here (e.g., heart condition management, major dental like dentures, electives). Retirement portability and legacy planning matter.
Metric | Pillar 2 (Singapore Model) | ACA (Obamacare) | Medicare for All (M4A) |
Annual Costs | ~$3,000-6,000 (PHA contributions ~$16,000/year, but tax-advantaged; CCP $1,800/year; high balances cover most. Dental from savings). | ~$5,000-10,000 (Medicare premiums $2,000+; supplements $3,000; no subsidies. Dental extra $1,000+). | ~$4,000-7,000 (no costs, but taxes 5-10% on high pensions; includes dental). |
Access to Care | Top-tier: Private options with PHA; short waits. Dental specialists accessible without extras. | Good via Medicare: Broad networks, but supplements needed for gaps. Dental via separate plans, waits vary. | Solid: Unlimited access, but potential delays for electives. Dental fully covered, reducing fragmentation. |
Coverage Quality | Premium: PHA rolls into retirement; CCP enhances Medicare-like for heart/dental. Preventive for longevity. | Strong basics via Medicare, but doughnut holes for drugs; dental/vision add-ons patchy. | Comprehensive: All-encompassing, no gaps; excellent for chronic/aging needs. |
Flexibility/Choice | Maximal: Inheritable PHA; private add-ons for concierge care. Customize for electives. | Moderate: Medicare Advantage options, but locked into system. Dental choices limited. | Low: Standardized; supplements possibly banned, curbing premium options. |
Overall Benefits/Risks | Legacy-building savings; choice for quality. Risk: Higher contributions (but offset by growth/tax perks). Win: Dignified, empowered aging. | Reliable but fragmented; risks high out-of-pocket for uncovered (e.g., dental). | Debt-free security; risks tax burden and reduced innovation. Suits if preferring uniformity over luxury. |
Key Takeaway for This Type: Pillar 2 maximizes choice and wealth preservation, perfect for self-funded seniors. ACA (via Medicare) is solid but additive; M4A equalizes but caps personalization.
Wrapping Up: Why Pillar 2 Offers the Best Path Forward
These charts illustrate Pillar 2's adaptability, lower costs and more choice than ACA, better efficiency and personalization than M4A, while ensuring equity for all. It's not about ideology; it's about results, as proven in Singapore. For citizens utilizing healthcare, this means predictability, empowerment, and health without financial ruin.
To read the full We the People Healthcare Act pillar 2
Read other related blogs
To join the Revolution!
Comments