Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Health care is not a top issue in 2024. Covid-19 explains why.

Blue donkey and red elephant facing off across a Covid particle
OsakaWayne Studios/Getty Images

Pearl, the author of “ ChatGPT, MD,” teaches at both the Stanford University School of Medicine and the Stanford Graduate School of Business. He is a former CEO of The Permanente Medical Group.

In a striking departure from recent voting and polling trends, health care has tumbled to the 16th most important problem facing Americans today, according to new Gallup data.

At first glance, this shift is bewildering, especially considering the central role health care played in the 2018, 2020 and 2022 election cycles.


Americans now list the nation’s top problems as immigration (28 percent), the government (20 percent), the economy in general (12 percent), inflation (11 percent), poverty, hunger and homelessness (5 percent), unifying the country (4 percent), crime/violence (4 percent), and so on.

Contrary to what the Gallup poll might suggest, the importance of health care hasn’t diminished. In fact, the scenario is quite the reverse. Health care continues to be a pivotal issue, but its impact now permeates a broader array of societal concerns, redefining what constitutes a “health care issue.”

To grasp this shift, consider the unprecedented health crisis our nation has recently navigated. The Covid-19 pandemic didn’t just challenge our health care system. It reshaped our nation and exacerbated nearly all of its underlying issues. Even with a significant reduction in disease-related fatalities, the pandemic’s imprint on our everyday lives is unmistakably widespread and deep-rooted. Four years filled with upheaval and apprehension have blurred the traditional boundaries between health care and other areas of our lives, from the economy and social relations to our trust in government and other people.

Take, for example, the direct and tangible impact of Covid-19 on our nation’s economy, which is reflected in the concerns ranked third, fourth and fifth in the Gallup survey. The pandemic’s disruption of supply chains, along with the government’s substantial financial relief packages, contributed massively to inflation. Since then, measures taken by the Federal Reserve to tame higher prices have increased interest rates, housing costs and homelessness.

As a result, the cost of health care, which was once viewed as an isolated financial burden, has become intertwined with other economic pressures, including soaring rents, grocery bills and fuel prices. Health care isn’t unimportant. It has simply become another item on a growing list of unaffordable expenses.

The pandemic took a toll not only on our pocketbooks, but also on the nation’s mental health and societal cohesion, too. Forced isolation and the widespread fear of infection sowed seeds of loneliness and distrust, leaving lasting scars on our collective psyche. This period of upheaval intensified perceptions of “the other,” fueling xenophobia and deepening social divides (reflected in first- and ninth-ranked concerns — immigration and race relations, respectively).

Immigration fears, a striking symptom of these anxious times, signal a deeper societal malaise and mistrust that gained momentum during the pandemic. Our shrinking social circles made us wary of engaging with those outside our immediate networks, exacerbating feelings of division.

As economic uncertainties and safety concerns mounted, so too has apprehension about the implications of open borders. What initially emerged as a health precaution — self-isolation — has evolved into a more profound shift in social attitudes, fueling the instinct to safeguard ourselves and our loved ones by keeping strangers out.

The ongoing crisis atmosphere also deepened distrust in government leadership (the second biggest issue), which further widened societal divisions and has prompted a desire among many Americans to unify the country (the sixth concern on the Gallup list).

The government’s handling of the pandemic — marred by testing-kit shortages, inconsistent health advisories, and fluctuating policies on school closures and mask mandates — amplified doubts about elected leaders and eroded people’s trust in regulatory bodies. Coupled with congressional struggles to enact bipartisan legislation, these issues paint a picture of pervasive government failure. The inability of elected officials to protect people’s health currently blends with its failure to address countless other basic needs.

Taken together, the reordering of national concerns in the wake of Covid-19 doesn’t suggest health care’s diminished relevance. Instead, it reveals the extent to which the pandemic unraveled the social fabric and collective psyche of our nation.

The fact that voters now prioritize issues like immigration, government effectiveness and the economy over traditional health care topics doesn’t indicate that our country is content with the health care system. To the contrary, in separate polling, 73 percent of U.S. adults say the health care system fails to meet their needs.

The reality is that the United States can’t successfully address the problems spotlighted in the Gallup poll unless we overcome our health challenges — be they physical, mental or economic.

To effectively tackle our economic hurdles, it’s essential to curb rising health care costs, which already exceed $4 trillion annually and are projected to reach $7 trillion by 2031. We also can’t narrow the widening rifts in our society unless we prioritize the physical and mental well-being of our populace. And finally, the public’s trust in government will continue eroding until legislators confront the issue of lobbying. Since 2021, health care companies have spent $1.4 billion on campaign contributions and lobbying — more than any other industry — to influence policy decisions. It is clear these practices have undermined the credibility of elected officials.

The Covid-19 pandemic indelibly altered our lives, caused widespread fear and laid bare the vulnerabilities of American politics. Its enduring influence is evident today. Surveys like this capture the extensive and profoundly negative effects it has had on people’s perceptions and priorities.




Read More

An empty grocery cart in a market.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

Issue Introduction

Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testifies during a Senate Committee on Appropriations hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on July 21, 2026. Hegseth is crafting a strong and masculine identity for his audience as he reportedly contemplates a presidential run.

(Alex Wroblewski/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)

Politicians Can’t Just ’Give the People What They Want’

For reasons that will baffle my many detractors, I am often asked for advice about being an opinion journalist. One of my standard responses is: You have to be willing to disappoint your biggest fans.

What I mean is that if you start to see your job as telling fans what they want to hear, you risk becoming an entertainer rather than a thinker, and eventually you become a caricature. I’ve seen it happen numerous times. Patrick Buchanan was a brilliant columnist and a serious person. But over the course of his career, he listened too much to the people who said, “Go Pat, go!” and too little to friends who said, “I think that’s taking it too far.”

Keep ReadingShow less
White marble exterior of the United States Capitol, often called the Capitol Building, is the home of the United States Congress and the seat of the legislative branch of the U.S. federal government

Congress approval is at a record-low 10%. Moderation and consensus-building, not partisan theatrics, are how Washington gets problems solved.

Richard Sharrocks / Getty Images

Reclaiming the Politics of the Possible

Washington is stuck in a cycle of performative conflict. The incentives seem to reward outrage, not outcomes that last; purity tests, not problem‑solving. So it’s no surprise that after three shutdowns in less than a year, public approval of Congress collapsed to just 10 percent this spring. (Gallup, April 2026.) But the country we live in — where many middle-income families report persistent financial strain and businesses are navigating unprecedented technological upheaval — cannot be governed by theatrics. Breaking this cycle requires moderation, consensus‑building, and a cooperative approach to governance.

This is not a call for centrism as an ideology. Instead, this is a call for transformative leaders to embrace moderation as their governing strategy, recognizing that in a pluralistic country of nearly 350 million people durable solutions require broad and stable alliances. Ultimately, this is a call for the 240 million of us who are eligible to vote in November to elect consensus-builders instead of bomb-throwers, and healers instead of arsonists.

Keep ReadingShow less
Adult man holds a microphone while asking a question during a town hall meeting.

Congress ignored 90% of public support for background checks. Learn how citizen assemblies and sortition helped Ireland break gridlock and could work in the US.

SDI Productions/Getty Images

Consensus Without Power: How Sortition Could Break America's Legislative Gridlock

In April 2013, four months after the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting killed twenty children, the US Senate voted on the Manchin-Toomey Act to expand background checks and to include gun-show and internet sales of firearms. Roughly nine in ten Americans, including a majority of gun owners, supported the bill—a figure that has held steady across more than a decade of polling. It fell short of the 60-vote threshold by six votes. This was not an outlier. On complex issues, representatives often fail to translate public consensus into reality. Research shows that legislators consistently vote in line with donor and interest group preferences over constituent opinion. Before the vote, the National Rifle Association (NRA) warned every senator it would “rate” their vote on its annual rating system, and a low NRA rating could cost senators their next primary. Consequently, the bill died 54-46, and the majority of Americans watched, powerless, as their consensus was overridden by self-interested representatives.

Liberal democracies need a method to bypass electoral incentives that run counter to public opinion. One already exists: Ireland faced the same stalemate on complex issues before it instituted a process called sortition. The beauty of sortition lies in its removal of the primary pressure that misaligns representatives’ interests from public interest: reelection. Much like jury duty, citizens are randomly drawn from the population. An independent body then stratifies the pool, so the final group mirrors the country by age, gender, geography, and income. The group meets over weeks or months, hearing from experts and the public, as well as debating frequently. At the end, it issues a recommendation that parliament may then put to a referendum or pass into law.

Keep ReadingShow less