Side-by-side analysis of what each approach would mean for your coverage, your costs, and your doctor.
We're a policy platform with 50 researched positions on every major issue. This page compares healthcare approaches across parties — but there's much more to explore.
The United States spends more on healthcare than any country on Earth — roughly $4.5 trillion per year — yet 26 million Americans have no health insurance, and millions more are underinsured with plans that don't cover what they need. Among wealthy nations, the US ranks dead last in health outcomes. Every other major democracy has solved this problem. We haven't. The question isn't whether the system is broken — it's which fix actually works.
The three major approaches to healthcare reform in America today differ at a fundamental level. Democrats want to build on the Affordable Care Act — expanding subsidies, adding a public option, and negotiating some drug prices within the existing insurance framework. Republicans want to move in the opposite direction: deregulate insurance markets, expand health savings accounts, and rely on market competition to bring costs down. The Common Good Party proposes something neither major party has been willing to embrace: a single-payer system with private delivery that covers every American, eliminates premiums entirely, and lets you keep your doctor.
This page breaks down each approach honestly — what it gets right, what it misses, and what it would actually mean for your coverage, your costs, and your access to care. No spin, no talking points, just the policy.
How the three approaches stack up on the issues that matter most to your healthcare.
| Issue | Democrats | Republicans | Common Good |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coverage approach | Expand ACA, public option | Market competition, HSAs | Universal single-payer |
| Who's covered | ACA expansion (~95%) | Market-driven (varies) | Everyone (100%) |
| Keep your doctor? | Depends on network | Depends on network | Yes — all doctors in-network |
| Prescription drugs | Negotiate some (IRA) | Market competition | Negotiate all drugs |
| Pre-existing conditions | Protected (ACA) | Varies by proposal | Protected — everyone covered |
| Cost to families | Premiums + deductibles | Premiums + HSAs | $0 premiums, 4% payroll tax |
| Employer coverage | Maintained | Maintained + expanded | Replaced by universal plan |
| Mental health | Parity expansion | Limited | Full parity, enforced |
| Dental / vision | Some expansion | Not included | Fully included |
| How it's paid for | ACA subsidies, taxes on wealthy | Tax credits, deregulation | Progressive taxation, eliminated premiums |
Sources: Congressional Budget Office, Kaiser Family Foundation, Commonwealth Fund, party platform documents. See the compact comparison view for a quick side-by-side summary.
The Democratic approach to healthcare centers on strengthening and expanding the Affordable Care Act. Key proposals include enhanced premium subsidies to make marketplace plans more affordable, the creation of a public option — a government-run insurance plan that would compete alongside private insurers — and expanded Medicare eligibility. The Inflation Reduction Act, passed in 2022, gave Medicare the ability to negotiate prices on a limited number of prescription drugs (starting with 10, expanding to 20 by 2029), representing the first time the federal government has been allowed to negotiate drug prices directly.
The ACA was a landmark achievement. It protected Americans with pre-existing conditions from being denied coverage — a provision that remains enormously popular across party lines. Medicaid expansion under the ACA brought coverage to millions of low-income Americans who had none. The IRA's drug negotiation provisions, while limited, established the principle that the government can and should negotiate drug prices. Democrats have also been strong on mental health parity legislation and expanding coverage for young adults up to age 26 on their parents' plans.
Building on the ACA means building on a system that still leaves millions uninsured and millions more underinsured. Even with expanded subsidies, families face premiums, deductibles, copays, and narrow provider networks. A public option would add competition but would not address the fundamental cost driver: $1.1 trillion in annual administrative waste generated by maintaining hundreds of separate insurance systems. Drug negotiation on 10-20 medications, while a step forward, leaves thousands of overpriced drugs untouched. The Democratic approach makes the current system less bad. It does not fix the structural problem.
For more on the ACA framework, see the full healthcare explainer.
The Republican approach to healthcare emphasizes market competition, consumer choice, and deregulation. Key proposals include expanding Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) with higher contribution limits and tax advantages, allowing insurance to be sold across state lines to increase competition, converting Medicaid to block grants that give states more flexibility, and rolling back ACA regulations that Republicans argue increase premiums — such as essential health benefit mandates. The goal is to reduce costs by letting the market work, rather than expanding government involvement.
Competition can lower prices in some markets, and HSAs give individuals more control over their healthcare spending. Regulatory flexibility for states can allow experimentation with different coverage models. The Republican emphasis on cost transparency — requiring hospitals and insurers to publish their negotiated rates — has been one of the most effective bipartisan reforms in recent years. Reducing regulatory burden on providers can also free up physician time for patient care rather than paperwork.
Healthcare is not a normal market. You cannot comparison-shop for an ambulance. You cannot negotiate the price of emergency surgery. Insurance companies have every incentive to insure healthy people and avoid sick ones — and without strong pre-existing condition protections, that is exactly what they do. Block-granting Medicaid typically results in reduced funding over time, which means fewer people covered. Rolling back essential health benefit mandates means plans can exclude maternity care, mental health, or prescription drugs — making insurance cheaper on paper but useless when you need it.
The market-based approach also does not address the core cost problem: monopolistic pricing by hospital systems, pharmaceutical companies, and device manufacturers. In markets with one or two hospital systems — which describes most of America — there is no competition to drive prices down. Without price negotiation or rate-setting, "market solutions" often mean higher prices with less coverage.
For a deeper analysis of how pricing monopolies drive costs, see our healthcare explainer.
The Common Good Party proposes universal healthcare through a single federal payer with private delivery. Every American is covered from birth — no enrollment periods, no eligibility gaps, no falling through the cracks. All doctors, hospitals, and clinics remain privately owned and operated. You choose your provider. The plan covers medical, dental, vision, hearing, mental health, substance abuse treatment, and prescription drugs. The federal government negotiates prices on all drugs — not just 10 or 20 — using international reference pricing. There are no premiums, no deductibles, and no copays for primary and preventive care.
Unlike the Democratic approach, the CGP plan doesn't try to patch a broken system — it replaces the payment mechanism entirely. One payer means one billing system, one set of rules, and an estimated $1.1 trillion in annual administrative savings. Unlike the Republican approach, it doesn't pretend that market competition works for emergency care, chronic illness, or prescription drugs where a single manufacturer holds a monopoly. The CGP plan covers everyone at a lower total cost than what America spends today, funded through progressive taxation that replaces premiums, deductibles, and copays. For the majority of American families, the payroll tax is less than what they currently pay for health insurance.
This is not theoretical. Thirty-three of the 36 OECD nations have universal healthcare systems. Canada, which runs a single-payer system similar to the CGP proposal, spends $5,905 per person compared to America's $12,555 — and covers everyone. Taiwan implemented single-payer in 1995 and now spends 6.6% of GDP on healthcare (vs. 17.3% in the US) while achieving better outcomes on nearly every metric. The administrative savings alone — from eliminating the overhead of 900+ insurance companies — would cover a significant portion of the cost of universal coverage.
Multiple independent analyses, including from the Congressional Budget Office, the Political Economy Research Institute, and researchers at Yale, have found that single-payer would reduce total national health expenditures while extending coverage to every American. The money is already in the system. It's just going to the wrong places.
The numbers matter more than the talking points. Here's what the Common Good healthcare plan would look like for real households — compared to what they pay today.
Want to see exactly how the plan affects your household? Enter your income, family size, and current insurance costs.
Open the Tax CalculatorCommon questions about how the three approaches compare.
Have a question not answered here? Read the full healthcare explainer or visit our site-wide FAQ.
Dive deeper into healthcare policy with these pages.
Every other wealthy democracy covers everyone and spends less. Read the full plan, run the numbers, and see which approach actually solves the problem.
Paid for by The Common Good Party (thecommongoodparty.com) and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.