When Congress created the Office of the Surgeon General of the United States in 1870, the mission was neither ideological nor symbolic. The position emerged from the Marine Hospital Service, the federal government’s early effort to protect merchant seamen from infectious disease and to prevent epidemics from destabilizing commerce and national security.
The Surgeon General was, in essence, the nation’s chief public health officer: a physician-scientist charged with safeguarding population health, coordinating responses to outbreaks, advancing sanitation and quarantine standards, and grounding policy in epidemiological evidence rather than political fashion.
The office evolved alongside the growth of the United States Public Health Service, becoming a platform for authoritative guidance during crises ranging from influenza pandemics to tobacco-related disease. Its legitimacy rested on expertise, restraint, and credibility.
READ: Sreedhar Potarazu | India’s AI content crackdown: Why it matters to Big Tech and the US (February 10, 2026)
That clarity of purpose feels distant today. The modern confirmation process for a Surgeon General often resembles a proxy battle in broader cultural and partisan conflicts. Recent controversy surrounding a nominee’s views on vaccines illustrates how the office has drifted from quiet technical stewardship toward a stage for ideological confrontation. In an era when public trust in institutions is fragile, the Surgeon General’s voice is too frequently interpreted through a political lens rather than a scientific one.
Instead of serving as the nation’s chief communicator of evidence-based health guidance, the position risks becoming another node in Washington’s polarization, its authority diluted precisely when coherent public health leadership is most needed.
This raises a deeper question: do we need a Surgeon General as presently configured, or do we need something more consequential—someone in the White House who understands healthcare not as a talking point, but as an operating system?
If the United States is serious about its future, then healthcare—not foreign conflicts, not ideological skirmishes, not symbolic culture wars—must become the singular organizing priority of the 2028 presidential election. No nation can lead, innovate, or inspire if its population is chronically ill, financially trapped by medical costs, and governed by leaders who neither understand how care is delivered nor how healthcare is financed, regulated and delivered.
Healthcare is not merely another policy domain but the foundation upon which economic productivity, national security, technological leadership, and social cohesion rest.
The next president must understand healthcare end to end—from bedside to boardroom, from data architecture to algorithms—because partial knowledge has already failed us for decades and the United States is on life support.
Sixteen years after the passage of the Affordable Care Act, it is no longer credible to describe it as an unfinished project rather than a deeply flawed structure that expanded coverage without creating accountability, affordability, or transparency, while entrenching insurers, pharmacy benefit managers, hospital systems, and suppliers whose incentives remain misaligned with patient outcomes and public value.
The law succeeded politically by making repeal nearly impossible, but it failed structurally by preserving opaque pricing, tolerating administrative excess, and allowing insurers to extract profits without commensurate responsibility. Patients face high deductibles, employers shoulder unsustainable premiums, and physicians absorb burnout—costs ultimately borne by taxpayers and families.
Equally neglected is the president’s need to understand employer-sponsored insurance, the quiet cornerstone of American healthcare since the end of World War II. It still covers the majority of working Americans and yet, it operates through a fragile patchwork of tax incentives, benefit design, risk pooling, and negotiated contracts that most policymakers neither comprehend nor respect.
Without a sophisticated grasp of how corporate America finances healthcare—how benefits shape labor markets, how premiums suppress wage growth, how self-insured plans interact with stop-loss carriers, and how regulatory overreach can destabilize coverage—any administration will continue to tinker at the margins while employers quietly shift costs onto workers.
No healthcare strategy can succeed without confronting the disease burden hollowing out the nation from within. Obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and mental health disorders now drive the majority of spending, yet our system remains optimized for episodic intervention rather than longitudinal prevention. Creating real incentives across the system—aligned payment models, employer engagement, community-level accountability, food policy reform, and early behavioral intervention—requires leadership that understands both clinical reality and economic behavior. Lectures about personal responsibility are meaningless in an environment that profits from chronic disease.
Technology, particularly artificial intelligence, represents the most powerful lever for transformation—but only if leaders recognize that AI is not a product to be purchased but an infrastructure to be built.
It demands interoperable data flows, standardized governance, energy-efficient computing, cybersecurity safeguards, and public. A president fluent in systems architecture and regulatory design can build a national framework for health data that is scalable, secure, and intelligently governed, enabling real-time learning rather than fragmented silos that serve vendors more than patients.
Technology will fail, however, if medical education remains frozen in the twentieth century. Physicians are trained to diagnose and treat, yet many graduate without fluency in data science, informatics, or systems thinking.
READ: Sreedhar Potarazu | AI sovereignty race: US and China lead, India watches (
If doctors are excluded from shaping the tools that increasingly guide diagnosis and reimbursement, they become passive end-users in an algorithmic economy. Revamping medical education to integrate AI, interdisciplinary collaboration, and health economics is not optional; it is essential if clinicians are to remain leaders rather than bystanders.
Serious reform also requires reexamining bureaucratic structures such as the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, whose payment recommendations influence billions in federal spending yet often operate at a distance from frontline care. Governance must reflect clinicians, patients, technologists, employers, and innovators in real time, using modern data and feedback loops rather than static reports that lag reality by years.
The truth is uncomfortable but unavoidable: healthcare is now the only issue that truly matters, because a nation that cannot keep its people healthy cannot project strength, credibility, or moral leadership.
The Surgeon General was created to protect the public from epidemics threatening commerce and stability. Today, the epidemic is systemic dysfunction—financial, technological, and structural. If the office is to remain relevant, it must be insulated from partisan theater and re-anchored in scientific authority. But even that will not suffice unless the presidency itself is grounded in healthcare literacy.
Read more columns by Sreedhar Potarazu
If the United States wants to be seen not as a country presiding over decline, but as the healthiest and most technologically advanced society on the planet, then 2026 midterms and 2028 elections must be a referendum on healthcare expertise, vision, and execution.
The question is no longer whether we need a Surgeon General. The question is whether we are prepared to demand that the highest office in the land understands the system that determines whether Americans live long enough—and well enough—to pursue the promise of the nation.