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.




















A golden tray sits on the Resolute Desk as President Donald Trump speaks during an announcement on American nuclear innovation in the Oval Office at the White House on July 24, 2026, in Washington, D.C. Trump is signing multiple executive orders targeting the nuclear energy sector and easing rules for new reactors and nuclear fuel supply chains.
Trump’s hubris rivals the fallen heroes of ancient Greek mythology
In January, the New York Times asked President Donald Trump if there were any limits on his global powers.
“Yeah,” the president responded, “there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”
That was eight months ago, but fortunately Christopher Nolan’s blockbuster adaptation of “The Odyssey” has made ancient Greek literature newly relevant. Before that window closes, I’d like to talk about hubris.
Today, the term mostly means excessive pride or arrogance. That’s part of what the Greeks meant by it too, but the meaning was a bit richer and more specific. Hubris was an insolent or outrageous act that offended the gods, often because the transgressor was claiming abilities or authorities that solely belonged to supreme beings.
Nolan renamed and slightly modified the concept of xenia for the film, calling it “Zeus’ law.” In the director’s telling, mortals should follow the rules laid out by the gods, specifically the requirement to treat strangers with respect lest they be gods in disguise.
In a sense, hubris is the opposite, or at least the rejection, of xenia. The hubris of the suitors, and at times Odysseus himself, invites punishment by the gods and their mortal instruments.
Which brings me back to Donald Trump. His claim that there are no constraints on his personal power to dictate events on the global stage was one of the greatest expressions of hubris ever uttered by a political leader.
Trump’s claim was obviously false when he made it.
He vowed that he could end the Russia-Ukraine war in 24 hours. He’s proved powerless to make that happen. If he had divine powers to work his will, why would he have balked at implementing his tariffs so often that Wall Street adopted the “TACO trade” term for his deals? “TACO” stands for “Trump always chickens out.”
And why would Trump have made so many embarrassing concessions to China — from rescinding tariffs on Chinese goods to allowing them to buy crucial and incredibly valuable computer chips?
But Trump saw his success at capturing Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro as proof of his ability to launch missiles to the same effect as Zeus’ lightning bolts. Trump believed he was the most powerful man who ever lived.
This is no exaggeration. In March, when the Iran invasion seemed successful, Trump gave a document penned by“Presidential Historian David King” to New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan purporting to prove that Trump was “the most powerful person to have EVER walked this planet.” King was, in fact, a businessman and occasional caddy for legendary golfer Gary Player.
King compared Trump favorably to many of history’s most powerful, and often heinous, figures: Alexander the Great, Attila the Hun, William the Conqueror, Napoleon Bonaparte, Joseph Stalin, Genghis Khan, Mao Tse Tung, Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Lenin. Many of these men thought they were the most powerful person in the world, too. And many were defeated precisely because they believed it.
At least Napoleon and Hitler had a string of truly impressive victories before they learned the folly of hubris. The limits on Trump’s power have been exposed by far less august forces than the combined might of the allies in World War II or the fearsome Russian winter.
Iran is a comparatively middling power. But the regime’s ability to absorb punishment while imposing its will on the Strait of Hormuz has proved to be a greater constraint on Trump’s power than his morality or mind. We should note that, at least rhetorically, his morality has not proved much of a constraint. He has repeatedly promised to destroy Iranian “civilization” if the regime refuses to capitulate.
But they haven’t — and won’t anytime soon — because the regime’s tolerance for pain far outstrips Trump’s. The combined fear of skyrocketing oil prices, outrage of Gulf state potentates, diminishing weapon supplies and domestic unpopularity is doing the work that international law, congressional oversight and the collective opinion of foreign policy experts can’t or won’t do.
If I considered Trump more heroic than reason and facts could allow, I would say his Sisyphean predicament has the whiff of Greek tragedy to it. Trump is vexed by the fact that the Iranians won’t honor deals or ratify his countless premature claims of victory — giving new meaning to his vow that his presidency would make people tired of winning. It’s almost like they’re out-Trumping Trump.
Things might have gone better if he’d heeded that great Greek tragedian Sophocles: “For Zeus utterly abhors the boasts of a proud tongue.”
____
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.