Why does The Fulcrum feature regular columns on health care in America?
U.S. health care spending grew 9.7 percent in 2020, reaching $4.1 trillion — 19.7 percent of the gross domestic product. Over the long term this is clearly unsustainable. If The Fulcrum is going to fulfill our mission as a place for informed discussions on repairing our democracy, we need to foster conversations on this vital segment of the economy. Maximizing the quality and reducing the cost of American medicine not only will make people's lives better, but will also generate dollars needed to invest in education, eliminating poverty or other critical areas. This series on breaking the rules aims to achieve that goal and spotlights the essential role the government will need to play.
Pearl is a clinical professor of plastic surgery at the Stanford University School of Medicine and is on the faculty of the Stanford Graduate School of Business. He is a former CEO of The Permanente Medical Group.
In the lead-up to the 2022 midterm elections, health care was once again a top issue for voters, ranking third behind inflation and abortion. But will its importance among voters translate to policy changes within a split Congress? That depends.
For constituents whose hearts are set on highly partisan pieces of legislation — like Medicare for All, popular among progressives, or raising the age of Medicare eligibility, as some Republicans desire — there’s no chance.
But, despite narrow majorities in the House and Senate, Congress can still pass highly beneficial laws over the next two years. Understanding which policies are in play is a matter of looking at where the health care agendas of both parties overlap.
Through that lens, here are three health care improvements the 118th Congress could pass:
Lower drug prices.
The Trump administration pushed congressional Republicans to cap drug prices, narrowing the gap between what Americans and Europeans pay for the same medications. The Biden administration, meanwhile, rallied Democrats behind the Inflation Reduction Act, part of which allows the federal government to negotiate the cost of the most expensive medications.
To capture the momentum and public support for lower drug prices, a variety of bipartisan bills have already been introduced.
One example is the Prescription Drug Pricing Dashboard Act, sponsored by Republican Sen. Susan Collins and Democratic Sen. Bob Casey. The bill would “improve transparency and help lower costs by requiring consistently updated information to be posted on the Drug Spending Dashboards at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services,” according to a press release.
If Congress could pass a bill like that for Medicare patients, it could certainly go a step further and require price transparency for all medications sold in the United States.
Just as hospitals are now required by law to list the retail price of inpatient services, Congress could mandate that all pharmacies publicly report their drug prices. This would allow patients and their doctors to compare prices for the best deals before filling prescriptions.
Expand health technology.
As the nation went on lockdown during the initial Covid-19 spike, Congress eased several telemedicine restrictions with overwhelming bipartisan support.
For example, both parties eagerly did away with interstate licensing laws that once prevented a doctor in, say, Chicago from doing a telehealth visit with a patient in northwest Indiana, just a few miles away (even though those same patients could legally get in a car and drive across the border for in-person care).
The transition was surprisingly seamless. Patients reported almost no issues with privacy or quality. In fact, most were grateful for the added convenience and timeliness of telehealth and, according to numerous studies, continue to want more of it.
And yet, many states are rolling back policies that made virtual care easier to access throughout the pandemic, creating a potentially dangerous setback.
Congress could intervene by permanently easing outdated restrictions on telemedicine.
Such policies would make a huge difference in combating the nation’s mental health crisis. Even now, most qualified therapists can’t offer virtual therapy to existing patients who move or even travel temporarily out of state. Given the shortage of mental health professionals and the growing demand for their services, bipartisan support for telehealth would benefit our nation’s psychological well-being and physical health.
Boost primary care.
The United States faces a projected shortage of 17,800 to 48,000 internal and family-medicine physicians by 2034.
According to recent Stanford-Harvard research collaboration, this shortage will take a massive toll on the health and lives of patients. The study found that adding 10 primary care doctors to a community increases the longevity of patients 2.5 times more than adding an equal number of specialists.
If Americans want longer lives (as well as lower health care costs and better access to care), adding more primary care physicians is the answer.
These doctors specialize in screening for and preventing diseases (like cancer and kidney failure) before they become a major problem. They also work closely with patients so that existing chronic illnesses (like diabetes or hypertension) don’t turn into a costly or even deadly medical crisis (like heart attack or stroke).
Last year, more than 1,000 doctors graduated from accredited medical schools but didn’t have a residency match. That’s because there weren’t enough training positions in the United States available within the government-funded program.
Congress can fix this with a small investment — one that will yield huge returns. The cost of training 1,000 additional primary care MDs a year would be approximately 0.1 percent of the current Medicare budget ($700 billion).
Moreover, those dollars would be recouped many times over in the future as patients need fewer ER visits, hospital admissions and interventional procedures.
As we now know, Covid-19 disproportionately killed Americans with two or more chronic diseases. This data shined a bright and unflattering light on our nation’s failure to prevent or effectively manage patients with diabetes, hypertension or obesity.
Hiring and training more primary care physicians would begin to address this shortcoming. Bills like the Resident Physician Shortage Reduction Act and the bipartisan Physicians for Underserved Areas Act indicate there’s interest in solutions on both sides of the aisle.
Democrats and Republicans may approach health care policy with different philosophical motives. Progressives care more about broadening access to care — especially for vulnerable populations — whereas conservatives want to limit needless spending.
But regardless of their health care ideologies, and despite the political divide, congressional leaders can pass bipartisan policies that would help millions of patients. I urge elected officials to seize these opportunities.












Ben Droz
Ben Droz







U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a campaign rally at Pinnacle Bank Expo Center on the Nebraska State Fairgrounds on October 05, 2026 in Grand Island, Nebraska.
The President Invited Iran to Bomb My Home
I was driving home to San Diego from Los Angeles on Monday night when I heard that the President of the United States had offered both cities up to Iran as bomb targets. At a rally in Nebraska, defending his war, Trump told the crowd, “let [Iran] take out Los Angeles, let ‘em take out San Diego.” It was, he said, “a very small price to pay.”
I was coming from a Bernie Sanders rally for Proposition 40, the one-time tax on California billionaires that would send 90% of its revenue to healthcare. We desperately need it to pass because, in order to give tax breaks to billionaires, Trump signed a law that will strip health coverage from 10 million Americans; this tax will make sure we can still cover Californians. Call me crazy, but I think taxing billionaires one time so we can make sure kids in California get to see a doctor is a very small price to pay. I also think that even if Trump were joking, it is indefensible to make jokes about the potential destruction of so many lives. Human life is never a small price to pay. Human life is priceless.
Plus, the reality is: here in San Diego, we’re already paying the price for Trump’s actions, and it’s not small at all. He has gutted FEMA, tried to kill climate resiliency programs, and destroyed public health standards, while his signature law is set to cut off health insurance and food support for hundreds of thousands of San Diegans. Like plenty of American cities, San Diego is already busy finding local solutions to respond to the problems this president has recklessly created.
Not to mention, at least 19 American service members have been killed in this war already. Human rights monitors have documented more than 3,600 dead in Iran by April alone. Here at home, gas is sitting just pennies below its all-time record. Taxpayers have already spent more than $45 billion on the war, while Trump’s oil and gas portfolio has grown by roughly $15.5 million this year alone. Of course anything is a “small price” to someone paying free.99 for this war, and profiting from it. Meanwhile, We the People are paying twice: first for the war, and then for the consequences of that war. But now he wants San Diego to pay a third time, flippantly offering us up to Iran.
It is worth noticing which cities he thought to name. Were San Diego and Los Angeles strategically chosen to signify something to his audience, or were they simply the first cities that came to mind as expendable places? Either way, the effect is to normalize—-and to gauge a crowd’s reaction to–the idea of massive violence in major California cities, suitable targets because of their perceived liberal lean. So what if Iran needs to bomb a little bit of America before the war can be over? Who cares, says Trump, if they target Los Angeles and San Diego?
By the way, why didn’t he offer up San Francisco, the free-love hippie-town MAGA loves to hate (and also my birthplace)? Could it be because that’s where the tech titans live? The same ones who joined Trump for Xi Jinping’s state dinner, a guest list worth a combined $2.4 trillion?
San Diego may have fewer billionaires, but it is home to more than 115,000 active-duty service members and 230,000 veterans. One in six active-duty sailors–in the entire Navy–is stationed here. So is one in four Marines. You cannot throw a rock in this county without hitting a military family: brats and spouses and veterans are among us. I got out of the Navy last year after ten years, and eight of those were here in San Diego. When Trump says “let ‘em take out San Diego,” he’s talking about the backbone of the United States military. He’s also talking about the people fighting his war.
San Diego has not been watching this war from the sidelines. Today, the USS Abraham Lincoln returns to North Island after an almost yearlong deployment to the Middle East that featured food shortages, broken toilets, and mold in the showers after 286 days at sea without a single port call. Eight sailors in the Lincoln’s strike group attempted suicide, but in August, when a reporter asked whether the deployment had gone on too long, Trump said “not nearly long enough.” Now he has told a crowd in Nebraska that we should let Iran take out the city those sailors call home. These are sociopathic sentiments.
Last week at Quantico, Pete Hegseth closed his address to the force by telling them, “President Trump has your back and so do I.” To the contrary, President Trump has put one of the biggest military towns in the country forward as a target for our adversaries. With friends like these, the “domestic” in “against all enemies, foreign and domestic” starts to sound a lot less hypothetical.
San Diego is home to Naval Air Station North Island, Naval Base San Diego, Naval Amphibious Base Coronado, the Point Loma submarine base, Camp Pendleton, and Miramar (and I have been permanently stationed at or trained at all of them). If Iran bombed San Diego and Los Angeles, aside from the devastating loss of life, it would cripple an immense share of our national security readiness.
And for what, exactly? Trump says the war is “essentially almost over with.” This is the same man who claimed in June 2025 that Iran’s nuclear program had been “obliterated,” then launched a war over it anyway on February 28. More than seven months later, he wants us to believe two things at once: that we’ve basically won, and that we might need to sacrifice an American city or two to finish winning. If the war is almost over, why does anybody need to take out San Diego?
I wonder if Trump’s endorsed candidate for California’s 48th District here in San Diego County will respond to these remarks. He recently said “no pain, no gain,” when referring to the gas prices San Diegans are paying. Jim Desmond, would you apply that same mindset if we were bombed? Or do you have the moral courage to stand up for the people you’re running to represent?
Last November, six Democratic members of Congress, all veterans, including Senator Mark Kelly, recorded a video reminding troops of their duty to disobey unlawful orders, restating the law that says so. Trump called it “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH,” and then his Justice Department went looking for an indictment, which a grand jury refused. The president treated reading the law out loud to the troops as a capital offense, but then he himself invited a foreign enemy to destroy two American cities, possibly as a punchline. Is anyone calling the latter sedition? Who is demanding accountability?
Calling our lives a small price to pay affirms a moral bankruptcy, as well as an obvious dereliction of duty to the office he holds. While we can’t impeach him or invoke the 25th Amendment ourselves, we must stop being so quiet about what we’re paying already. We can make our voices heard by calling our representatives, writing op-eds, knocking doors, phone banking, and voting in defiance of the man who threatens the safety of our city. Ballots are already arriving in mailboxes. Vote, and vote yes on 40 (and no on 41 and 42).
Trump has been harming our cities for a while, but now he is inviting our military adversaries to join him in the harm. If we have any self-respect as Americans, we must not tolerate our leaders disregarding the dignity of lives in this way. We must fight for our home.
Julie Roland was a Naval Officer for ten years, deploying to both the South China Sea and the Persian Gulf as a helicopter pilot before separating in June 2025 as a Lieutenant Commander. She has a law degree from the University of San Diego, a Master of Laws from Columbia University, and is a member of the Truman National Security Project.