Yesterday, the UK Guardian ran a sneering story headlined, “‘Absolutely no detail’: experts alarmed as Trump unveils healthcare plan.” At this point, anything that is described as alarming to experts is almost certainly good news. But what, exactly, is President Trump’s so-called “Great Healthcare Plan”? And why is it so alarming?
The very first line of the White House’s official plan website explained the plan’s goal, in all-caps: “CALLING ON CONGRESS TO LOWER HEALTHCARE COSTS.”
In other words, the “plan” is really a blueprint for Congress to codify President Trump’s various healthcare affordability initiatives. There were basically four main objectives, none of them new:
- Sending Obamacare subsidies directly to eligible taxpayers, to help them buy insurance, instead of sending the money to the insurance companies;
- Making permanent “Most Favored Nation” drug pricing for Americans;
- Requiring insurance companies to plainly disclose costs and profits “without industry jargon;” and
- Requiring healthcare providers to “prominently post their pricing and fees.”
All of these objectives are already fully or partially underway in a Trump executive order, regulatory initiative, or pressure tactic. Recall, for example, the recent presidential announcement of “persuading” insurance companies to “join” his TrumpRx discount drugs website.
All four objectives are also incredibly popular 80/20 issues. Popular, that is, with everyone except insurance companies, healthcare providers, Congressmen, and Democrats.
🔥 Trump’s new “plan” is better understood as pressure on Congress, to get busy passing laws making Trump’s executive orders and initiatives permanent. Noticeably absent from Trump’s announcement were House Speaker Mike Johnson or Senate Majority Leader John Thune. If this announcement had been coordinated with a receptive Congress, we might have expected to see one or both gentlemen there, if for no other reason than to soak up some of the credit.
Progressives are appalled. The Guardian was deeply skeptical and dismissive. “The Trump plan would require the approval of Congress before it could go into effect,” the article noted, “an outcome far from guaranteed despite Republicans holding a majority in both chambers.”
But assuming Republicans draft and propose a bill to implement Trump’s plan, it would shove Democrats into the politically awkward posture of opposing direct subsidies to Americans and lowering drug prices. They must now argue in favor of preserving the status quo— which will be difficult since they’ve already criticized the status quo of healthcare as unaffordable.
Checkmate!
Read critically. After a few short paragraphs describing Trump’s plan, the Guardian spent the rest of its column inches rounding up a cockroach nest of anxious experts to criticize the plan— not a single one finding anything at all to like among the plan’s hugely popular objectives. What did I tell you yesterday about articles quoting experts only on one side? I won’t bother to cite the Guardian’s rancid stew of pro-big-health propaganda, except to note that its experts both ironically complained about the plan’s lack of details and also predicted it would surely send Obamacare into a “death spiral” (which, for some of us, would be a feature and not a bug).
Trump just handed Republicans in Congress a massive political opportunity. For now, I will assume they are smart enough to grab the affordability ball and run toward the goal. I know— it’s a big assumption.
