LETTER: Universal health care comes with significant trade-offs

Kirk Rowe, a Las Vegas resident, submitted a letter to the editor on August 15, 2026 at 9:01 p.m., responding to Jerry Sturdivant’s August 7 commentary on universal health care. Rowe writes that Sturdivant correctly notes the United States remains the only industrialized nation without a universal wellness‑care system, but he argues that Sturdivant overlooks the trade‑offs inherent in such programs. Universal wellness care is not free, Rowe contends. It is financed through higher taxes, mandatory payroll contributions, or broad‑based consumption taxes such as the value‑added taxes common in many European countries. Adopting a system of that scale would almost certainly require contributions from a far broader segment of Americans, not merely “taxing the rich.” Many low‑income households currently pay little or no federal income tax, so achieving universal coverage would likely necessitate wider tax increases or compulsory contributions. He adds that nations with universal systems frequently contend with lengthy waits for specialist appointments, elective surgeries, and diagnostic testing because demand often exceeds supply. Government‑funded health care can also bring greater state involvement in public‑health policies intended to curb taxpayer‑funded medical expenses. Improving health care, Rowe concludes, deserves an honest assessment of both benefits and costs rather than the idea that universal coverage comes without significant trade‑offs. Americans should fully understand what they would gain, what they would pay, and what compromises they might be asked to accept.