Texas Democrat Senate candidate James Talarico gave a policy speech on Wednesday in which he pushed for more government control over healthcare.

Specifically, the candidate wants the government to cancel medical debt. 

“Working Texans, working Texans are drowning, and they're drowning in debt,” he said. “Household debt reached an all-time high in the first quarter of this year. It is time to cancel medical debt and stop hospitals and insurance companies from overcharging their patients.”

He argued that, “You shouldn't go into debt just because you get sick.”

Talarico is right about the medical debt problem. About 100 million Americans carry a total of about $220 billion in medical debt. It’s become one of the most common financial problems Americans experience. In fact, about 14 million adults owe more than $1,000 while three million face debt of over $10,000. The issue has harmed credit scores and forced families to forego other basic expenses.

Recommended
New York City Dems Have a New Nickname for Their Favorite Thin-Skinned Mayor Jeff Charles President Trump Won't Endorse His 2028 Successor, but One Name Just Got a Big Boost in the Polls Dmitri Bolt

But, as always, big government proponents miss the point. They correctly identify the problem, but show a remarkable lack of understanding of how the problem arose in the first place.

The truth is that government, as always, created this problem through policies that drive up healthcare prices. Johns Hopkins professor Ge Bai gave testimony before the Senate in which he stressed that government policies that “detach patients from our healthcare dollars” and “tilt the playing field in favor of large players.” 

One example is the prevalence of certificate-of-need laws in many states that force healthcare providers to obtain approval from the state before expanding or opening new facilities. To get this approval, the organization has to make the case to the government, which allows its competitors to weigh in and argue against the expansion. In this way, the government picks winners and losers — and the losers are always the consumers.

By cracking down on competition, state governments drive prices higher while stifling innovation.

Other government rules grant insurance companies wider latitude to overcharge patients through higher premiums and limited choices. The Affordable Care Act’s medical loss ratio rule requires insurers to spend at least 80 to 85 percent of premiums on medical care. However, this only benefits these corporations because when overall costs increase, their profits also rise even if the percentage remains the same.

As is always the case, the government creates a problem, then tells us it needs to expand its power so they can solve the problem.