Nothing about the climate, which is arguably the most important issue we face. Americans still have their heads in the sand and it isn't going to end well.
People who struggle to afford housing, health care, education, childcare cannot afford to vote based on "climate." I agree it is a huge issue that only a functioning Congress can make progress on, but this piece was about immediate economic worries of Americans who wrote to the author.
Americans struggling to make ends meet did not list "democracy" as a top concern. That is a different group of people, including the college educated and middle to upper income. Very different set of concerns for these groups of people.
Why the United States spends roughly double per capita on healthcare compared to other advanced OECD $14,885 in the US vs. a wealthy nation average of ~$7,371), the primary driver is not the volume of care Americans receive, but the price they pay for it. The money goes toward funding the friction of a trillion-dollar insurance billing apparatus (waste) and satisfying the unregulated pricing power of corporate healthcare systems and drug manufacturers (profit).
Providing universal healthcare would instantly change the payee, moving the U.S. closer to the European model of higher taxes in exchange for zero out-of-pocket medical risk. However, whether it successfully reduces the astronomical "price" of American medicine depends entirely on whether the government is politically willing to legally cap corporate healthcare profits, mandate uniform pricing, and dismantle the private insurance bureaucracy.
During the 2026 midterm election cycle, political donations from the healthcare industry and pharmaceutical companies were split nearly evenly (50/50) between the Democratic and Republican parties. Historically, the pharmaceutical and healthcare manufacturing sectors have leaned significantly Republican, averaging roughly 64% of their donations to the GOP since 1990. However, the 2026 midterms saw a dramatic shift toward parity as the industry strategically hedged its bets.
In my opinion when it comes to controlling healthcare costs in United States “we may have a Congress” but we are sadly unlikely to get meaningful reform.
Agree about the overwhelming power of the hospital, insurance, Erisa and Pharma lobbies. I would add that we cannot only focus on "for profit" parts of health care. Non-profit hospitals and systems have been shown to charge higher prices than for profit hospitals and system. States and think tanks are looking for ways to reform our "non-profit" hospital system. Oregon has a new law and KFF studied Texas' non profit hospitals. Thhttps://www.aei.org/economics/how-hospitals-should-merit-their-tax-exempt-status/?utm_campaign=21086878-DIGITAL_NLR%20AEI%20Today&utm_medium=email&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-937C-ooX46kziIgGzwzNJQopdJA9X3F2rI5lDltrPw3nA561RpNQ3dpVy8gNiUB1p_5T8iE2r9LMUtQMWZze-CePF0K1bmRGBJGOvMHH_vlPO_t4o&_hsmi=382583389&utm_content=382583389&utm_source=hs_email
Regarding your criticism about Congress letting enhanced Obamacare subsidies expire, as an economist will you acknowledge that those subsidies did not and will not solve the underlying problem of rising health care costs? The ACA, mainstream Dems' go-to solution, needs to be reworked at a minimum given that Congress got rid of the pay-fors and levers that were supposed to make the ACA work. The enhanced subsidies helped people in the short term, but Congress needs a long-term solution to bend the cost curve.
Nothing about the climate, which is arguably the most important issue we face. Americans still have their heads in the sand and it isn't going to end well.
People who struggle to afford housing, health care, education, childcare cannot afford to vote based on "climate." I agree it is a huge issue that only a functioning Congress can make progress on, but this piece was about immediate economic worries of Americans who wrote to the author.
Well, one of their top issues was democracy, so I think they can afford to consider the climate.
Americans struggling to make ends meet did not list "democracy" as a top concern. That is a different group of people, including the college educated and middle to upper income. Very different set of concerns for these groups of people.
The climate affects the cost and availability of everything. It affects all of us.
Why the United States spends roughly double per capita on healthcare compared to other advanced OECD $14,885 in the US vs. a wealthy nation average of ~$7,371), the primary driver is not the volume of care Americans receive, but the price they pay for it. The money goes toward funding the friction of a trillion-dollar insurance billing apparatus (waste) and satisfying the unregulated pricing power of corporate healthcare systems and drug manufacturers (profit).
Providing universal healthcare would instantly change the payee, moving the U.S. closer to the European model of higher taxes in exchange for zero out-of-pocket medical risk. However, whether it successfully reduces the astronomical "price" of American medicine depends entirely on whether the government is politically willing to legally cap corporate healthcare profits, mandate uniform pricing, and dismantle the private insurance bureaucracy.
During the 2026 midterm election cycle, political donations from the healthcare industry and pharmaceutical companies were split nearly evenly (50/50) between the Democratic and Republican parties. Historically, the pharmaceutical and healthcare manufacturing sectors have leaned significantly Republican, averaging roughly 64% of their donations to the GOP since 1990. However, the 2026 midterms saw a dramatic shift toward parity as the industry strategically hedged its bets.
In my opinion when it comes to controlling healthcare costs in United States “we may have a Congress” but we are sadly unlikely to get meaningful reform.
Agree about the overwhelming power of the hospital, insurance, Erisa and Pharma lobbies. I would add that we cannot only focus on "for profit" parts of health care. Non-profit hospitals and systems have been shown to charge higher prices than for profit hospitals and system. States and think tanks are looking for ways to reform our "non-profit" hospital system. Oregon has a new law and KFF studied Texas' non profit hospitals. Thhttps://www.aei.org/economics/how-hospitals-should-merit-their-tax-exempt-status/?utm_campaign=21086878-DIGITAL_NLR%20AEI%20Today&utm_medium=email&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-937C-ooX46kziIgGzwzNJQopdJA9X3F2rI5lDltrPw3nA561RpNQ3dpVy8gNiUB1p_5T8iE2r9LMUtQMWZze-CePF0K1bmRGBJGOvMHH_vlPO_t4o&_hsmi=382583389&utm_content=382583389&utm_source=hs_email
Regarding your criticism about Congress letting enhanced Obamacare subsidies expire, as an economist will you acknowledge that those subsidies did not and will not solve the underlying problem of rising health care costs? The ACA, mainstream Dems' go-to solution, needs to be reworked at a minimum given that Congress got rid of the pay-fors and levers that were supposed to make the ACA work. The enhanced subsidies helped people in the short term, but Congress needs a long-term solution to bend the cost curve.