The Role Health PLAYED in the Election
I have no idea what the outcome of this very close election will be. I do, however, have a fix on several of the ways health care played a role in the election and in campaign strategy. It won’t change much by election day.
With no big health reform debate to command the attention of the nation and no big health proposal from either candidate, this is not a “health care election,” except, of course, for the impact abortion will have on voting and turnout, whatever the outcome on November 5.
But health care has played a role in the campaign and the election in the following significant ways.
First and foremost, voter concerns about their medical bills are an integral part of their worries about the economy and their costs, mixed in with general inflation and other pocketbook issues such as food, gas prices, and the rent or the mortgage. Most national polls continue to miss this, treating health care as a separate issue. When you treat health care as a stand-alone issue, it ranks as a fairly low priority. However, out-of-pocket health care costs and worries about unexpected medical bills are a big part of the public’s economic worries. Exit polls have made the same mistake. Determining the role health plays on voters’ decisions requires an extra question, which takes time that short polls often do not have. The question that needs to be asked is a variation on this follow-up: “You said the economy was your number one concern. What about the economy most worries you?” The question can be open ended, or respondents can be given a list to choose from. There are arguments for either approach.
The advantage Vice President Harris and the Democrats have on health has also had an impact on former President Trump and his campaign strategy. He has generally backed off plans to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA), saying various things, including recently that he has “concepts of a plan,” but mostly protesting that he now wants to “make the ACA better” with no specifics. He’s also pledged that he will not cut Medicare (no such pledge on Medicaid). And he backtracked on his earlier, more bullish positions on drug costs, going silent on his plan to tie drug costs in the U.S. to what other countries pay, apparently wanting to stay away from even popular health proposals. Overall, he has ceded health care to Harris, likely wary that she will get traction with criticisms that he would take health coverage away from millions and weaken protections for pre-existing conditions.
Harris has taken the opposite approach on the issue that Trump has about an equivalent advantage on—immigration—by taking the offensive to try to close the gap. And she has tried to do the same on the economy with some success, according to several recent polls. (Of course, positions taken in campaigns do not necessarily presage positions a candidate will take if elected.)
The sweeping proposals made by several conservative think tanks to fundamentally change Medicare, Medicaid, and the ACA have been swept under the rug by the Trump campaign, even as Democrats have had some success making Project 2025 a symbol of right-wing extremism. That doesn’t mean the candidate and his administration will not embrace some elements of these plans if elected or appoint some of their architects to high positions. It is, however, a notable element of the campaign, and an acknowledgment that these ideas are a target for Democrats and that Trump and his campaign know that many of them would be controversial and unpopular.
Senator JD Vance’s brief and somewhat vague foray into segmenting healthy and sick people into separate risk pools as an alternative to ACA protections for people with pre-existing conditions was treated by Trump almost the same way he treated the think tank plans: he ignored it. It was as if health had become radioactive for Trump, who campaigned on other issues, including immigration, which he saw as more favorable to him.
Health might have been more of an important issue in the campaign if differences between the candidates and the parties on converting Medicare to a voucher-like, premium support plan, or Medicaid to a block grant to the states, were clarified for voters by the candidates themselves, the debate moderators, or the media generally. Debate moderators focused more on the ACA, likely because of the drama associated with Trump’s earlier attempts to repeal it. Had Trump been forced to choose between embracing or rejecting either of these big and controversial policy proposals, it would have elevated health in the campaign and might have been a flashpoint.
The Democratic left’s concern that Trump might be elected has led them to hold fire on pushing for the more expansive health reform proposals they favor, instead supporting President Biden’s more moderate, incremental policies, and subsequently, the proposals made by Vice President Harris. Should Harris prevail, expect the left to feel less constrained and to hear again about Medicare for All, the public option, Medicare Buy-In, and other policies favored by the left. Passage of legislation on these ideas, or others, is an entirely different matter, especially if Congress is divided.
Harris’s new proposal to add a home care benefit to Medicare may find favor with some elderly and near elderly voters, especially senior women or their family members. That’s one thing to watch as the voters go to the polls. The idea should be popular unless voters come to doubt that Harris can deliver. So far Harris has proposed popular benefits such as extending the $2,000 cap on out-of-pocket drug costs and the $35 monthly cap on Insulin to the private sector, and she has endorsed continuing the enhanced ACA subsidies. She has avoided proposals that would inflame the powerful health care industry, such as extending drug price negotiation to employer coverage.
These are some of the ways in which health care and health care costs have played a role in the presidential campaign. It’s certainly true that health care has not been decisive in this election, but it has played a role, and always will.