This column was submitted anonymously to The Current: 

As we enter this 2026 election year, it should come as no surprise that Democrats are suddenly claiming an “epiphany” on healthcare—positioning it alongside issues such as racism, sexism, and other social injustices, often framing disagreement as a failure to “think correctly.”

What is surprising is the willingness of the Left to speak about “healthcare affordability” while continuing to defend Obamacare subsidies—despite the fact that even with those subsidies, U.S. healthcare costs remain more than twice those of other developed nations, with no corresponding improvement in health outcomes. Obamacare was a complete failure.

What is not surprising, is the Left’s hypocrisy.

In effect, the political message becomes: “Vote for me, and I’ll ensure your healthcare remains twice as expensive as everywhere else—without making you healthier.”

That would be an untenable value proposition in any other industry. No product or service survives long at double the cost without delivering dramatically better results—except U.S. healthcare.

This is why healthcare debates so often rely on emotion rather than facts. Emotion is an effective electoral strategy; facts are not. But facts matter—especially when the stakes involve trillions of dollars and the financial well-being of American families.

Any liberal candidate spouting this nonsense should be relatively easy to counter—because conservatives understand the data.

If you’re going to run, run on facts, because facts are truths.

FACT: Based on 2026 healthcare spending projections of approximately $5.9 trillion, and well-documented estimates that 20.6%–30% of care is unnecessary, the U.S. will waste between $1.215 trillion and $1.77 trillion on unnecessary care in 2026 alone.

That equates to $3,550–$5,175 per person, across a population of roughly 342 million Americans.

FACT: An NIH study found that over 80% of unnecessary emergency room visits are driven by perceived severity and urgency of new symptoms—an emotional response—rather than informed, data-driven decision-making. By extension, this dynamic affects many other forms of unnecessary care.

FACT: Peer-reviewed research shows that this perception-driven utilization is largely the result of delayed access to primary care in the United States.

The U.S. has roughly half the number of primary care providers per 1,000 people compared to countries that spend less than half of what we spend as a percentage of GDP.

With average primary care wait times now exceeding 31 days (up from 26), fear and anxiety become a predictable human response. As a result, perceived severity and urgency—not medical necessity—drive a significant portion of the 20.6%–30% unnecessary care burden.

This is precisely why primary care is consistently shown to be the most efficient and effective component of healthcare delivery. Primary care is lower cost, trusted, and human. It helps patients properly assess symptoms, reduces unnecessary utilization, lowers system-wide costs, and improves outcomes.

FACT: Returning even a portion of the $3,550–$5,175 per person currently wasted on unnecessary care would materially improve affordability for the average American.

Isn’t this “unnecessary care coefficient” the real roadmap to fixing healthcare affordability?

Unnecessary care is care that isn’t needed—and it ultimately shows up as higher premiums, higher taxes, and a more congested system for everyone.

Isn’t that a far more meaningful conversation than emotional gaslighting?

Shouldn’t liberal candidates be offering solutions instead of whining about and amplifying problems?