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.

View all of Drew’s Beyond the Data Columns

The post The Role Health PLAYED in the Election appeared first on Medika Life.

When it comes to environmental and climate policies, the past can often be a reliable indicator of future efforts. US voters should closely examine President Joe Biden’s and former President Donald Trump’s track record in this area. Their contrasting approaches to climate change shape the environment and guide investors’ decisions around climate technology. The availability of capital is crucial for innovation, and without it, progress in this field could stagnate, much like a rain-deprived stream.

Downstream, climate impacts a cascade of other social issues, including health equity and higher risks to communities of color. It seems to be a kick-the-can down-the-road issue unless you live in an area with increased storms, rising temperatures, or water lines.

Three considerations sway investors’ decisions: favorable government policies, talent needed to innovate, and financial resources essential to bring to market technologies that can sustain businesses and, perhaps, the planet. As Elections 2024 close in, some private equity groups looking at climate-tech innovations and their limited partner investors will put a knee down and wait until the election smog clears. Whoever sits in the White House influences climate policies and, depending on your political viewpoint, the tempo of the planet’s ticking sustainability clock.

There is no need to guess the differences between the two candidates. Former President Trump and current President Biden have a track record of speaking to and engaging with environmental issues as clearly as night and day. Neither is shy about which way the nation should head — and, therefore, the planet. In many ways, it comes down to bread-and-butter issues — or as former President Clinton opined: “It’s the economy stupid.”

Trump’s Environmental Policy: Deregulation and Fossil Fuels – Focus on Conservation

Former President Donald Trump’s four-year term was marked by an emphasis on deregulation and support for the fossil fuel industry. He termed climate change a “hoax” and shelved reams of Federal regulations and treaties, arguing that they were damaging to business and the nation’s growth engine. His administration’s policies preferred traditional energy sources over renewable alternatives.

Among his first significant actions in office was announcing the United States withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, a landmark international accord aimed at reducing global greenhouse gas emissions. This move signaled a significant shift from the US government’s global climate commitments.

The Trump administration also implemented policies supporting oil and gas drilling, including opening up Federal lands and offshore areas for exploration. Environmental regulations were rolled back, with more than 100 ecological rules and regulations being reversed, weakened, or repealed. These actions aimed to boost domestic energy production, reduce dependence on foreign fuel sources and support US-based business interests. But he did not abandon the issue altogether.

Former President Trump emphasized the importance of job security and protecting the more than 10 million people who earn a livelihood in the petrochemical sector. That figure is based on a 2015 study by the American Petroleum Institute evaluating the economic weight of the oil and gas sector. However, the Biden plan does not put an end to the extraction of fossil fuels or impose a ban on fracking. The shift toward a cleaner energy economy suggests replacing them during a 25-year transition by supporting renewable energy sectors expected to generate new jobs.

The former president’s strong words questioning carbon footprint and climate change should not overshadow his significant legislative achievements.  President Trump took several actions to improve climate and the environment during his tenure. Trump committed the US to the Trillion Trees Initiative, aiming to conserve, restore, and grow trees worldwide, which help absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The Great American Outdoors Act was signed into law during his term in office, providing permanent funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund by addressing the maintenance backlog in national parks, which helps preserve natural landscapes. He also signed the Save Our Seas Act into law to tackle marine debris and reduce ocean pollution.

These actions reflect a mix of environmental protection measures amidst a broader energy policy often criticized for deregulating fossil fuel industries Strong statements debunking climate change often overshadowed his positive impact.

The Trump administration made major efforts to conserve nature in the US; however, the impact of his policies on climate tech investment was profound. Deregulation and focus on fossil fuels created an uncertain environment for investors in clean and renewable energy and climate technologies. The lack of favorable climate policies shifted the risk/reward balance for investors to gauge the long-term viability of climate-tech ventures and the potential for return on investment. Knee down.

Biden’s Environmental Policy: Renewed Commitment and Green Investments

After the 2020 elections, President Joe Biden made environmental and climate issues a central focus of his administration. From his campaign promises to his actions in office, Biden demonstrates a solid commitment to addressing climate change and promoting clean energy technology. Among the hallmarks of Biden’s first term in office is the signing of the bipartisan Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) into law — the nation’s most significant investment in clean energy and climate action.

In contrast to his predecessor, the President’s first action upon taking office was rejoining the Paris Agreement, signaling a renewed commitment to international climate cooperation. He has set ambitious climate goals, including achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and transitioning the United States to a 100% clean energy economy. Biden outlined a comprehensive climate plan to accomplish these goals with a sizable investment in renewable energy, energy efficiency, and advanced climate technologies. As the Federal government prioritized climate tech innovation, states followed suit, offering consumers tax rebates to embrace alternative energy.

The IRA legislation created 170,606 new jobs in 44 states between August 16, 2022, and July 20, 2023. With bipartisan support, the pump primed with capital led to 272 new clean energy projects in small towns and big cities nationwide, totaling $278 billion in new investments.

The Biden administration’s American Jobs Plan, a cornerstone of his economic agenda, includes significant funding for clean energy infrastructure, electric vehicle deployment, and research and development in climate technologies. The White House plan allocated billions of dollars to developing and deploying renewable energy sources such as solar and wind power and investing in emerging technologies like carbon capture and storage.

Clear policy direction, coupled with substantial Federal funding and incentives, invited private equity to prioritize the sector and boosted investor confidence in the potential of climate technologies. The Biden administration’s focus on creating green jobs and promoting sustainable industries attracted significant attention from investors looking to capitalize on the growing demand for clean energy solutions.

Presidents’ Influence on the Winds of Change

Undoubtedly, Trump and Biden’s environmental policies impact climate tech investment. Under the Trump administration, the White House took dramatic action to advance legislation to support national parks, reforestation, and water-system upgrades. However, the climate tech sector faced severe headwinds due to the absence of supportive Federal policies, tipping into an uncertain regulatory environment. Given the administration’s apparent preference for fossil fuels and deregulation, private equity and venture capital took a watch-and-wait approach to renewable energy and climate technologies.

In comparison, the Biden administration policies boosted gave energy to the climate tech sector. Investors are more confident in the long-term prospects of climate technologies, leading to increased funding for renewable energy projects, electric vehicles, and other clean energy solutions.

The impact of these policy shifts can be seen in the growth of the climate tech sector. According to industry reports, venture capital funding for climate tech startups reached record levels in 2021, 2022 and 2023, influenced by the Biden administration’s supportive policies and the growing recognition of the urgent need to address climate change. Major corporations and financial institutions are also making significant commitments to sustainability, further fueling the sector’s growth.

Here is a quick summary contrasting the Trump and Biden climate approaches:

International Climate Agreements

Trump: Withdrew the United States from the Paris Agreement, arguing that it was unfair to American workers and industries. Deprioritized Federal interest in international climate cooperation, focusing on US economic priorities.

Biden: Rejoined the Paris Agreement on his first day in office, signaling an ongoing commitment to global climate action. The Biden administration participates in international climate summits and collaborates with other nations to meet global climate goals.

Does it Matter: To provide for a sustainable planet and open the facet for investment, White House support and Environment Protection Agency efforts send a message to VC and PE groups looking to balance risk with return on investment.

Regulatory Environment and Deregulation

Trump: Rolled back more than 100 environmental regulations, emphasizing deregulation to boost the fossil fuel industry. Encouraged drilling, mining, and oil and gas production expansion on Federal lands.

Biden: Implemented stricter environmental regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and protect public lands. Introduced policies to transition to renewable energy sources and phase out fossil fuels, aiming for a net-zero emissions economy by 2050.

Does it Matter: Stronger environmental regulations reduce pollution and protect ecosystems, impacting public health outcomes and resource management. A clear regulatory framework provides certainty for investors in clean energy technologies.

Federal Investment in Clean Energy and Technology

Trump: Reduced Federal funding for renewable energy research and development, favoring fossil fuel investment. Prioritized short-term economic gains from traditional energy sectors over long-term sustainability.

Biden: Through initiatives like the American Jobs Plan, substantial funding has been allocated for renewable energy projects, electric vehicle infrastructure, and research and development in climate technologies. Promotes innovation in climate tech, aiming to create green jobs and modernize the energy infrastructure.

Does it Matter: Federal investment in clean energy influences economic growth, creates high-quality jobs, and positions the US within the global clean energy market. It also reduces dependence on fossil fuels, contributing to energy security and environmental sustainability.

Public Lands and Conservation

Trump Opened millions of acres of public lands for drilling, mining, and logging, reducing the size of several national monuments. Public lands are primarily resources for economic exploitation. But he also signed landmark legislation supporting national parks, water conservation, and tree planting to offset carbon concerns.

Biden: The Biden administration prioritized protecting and conserving public lands, reversing several of the Trump administration’s decisions to make them available for oil and gas drilling. It also prioritized biodiversity and promoting sustainable land use practices.

Does it Matter: Protecting public lands conserves natural habitats, which are crucial for biodiversity, recreation, and cultural heritage. It supports ecosystem services that benefit agriculture, water quality, and climate resilience.

Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation

Trump: Downplayed the risks of climate change, focusing on the short-term economic benefits of fossil fuel production. Comprehensive climate mitigation and adaptation strategies are lacking, leaving many communities unprepared for climate impacts.

Biden: Developed comprehensive climate action plans, including plans for mitigation and adaptation. By prioritizing building climate-resilient infrastructure — construction and rehabilitation — policies support communities vulnerable to climate impacts.

Does it Matter: Effective climate change strategies are essential to protect communities from extreme weather events, rising sea levels, and other climate-related risks. Proactive measures raise costs initially but reduce long-term costs and enhance the economy by creating retraining programs and new, higher-paying employment.

*****

The stark differences between President Biden’s and President Trump’s approaches to climate change highlight the importance of climate policy in shaping the nation’s future. One candidate is seeking international cooperation, regulatory frameworks, Federal investment in clean energy, conservation of public lands, and comprehensive climate strategies to offer a path toward sustainability and resilience. The other speaks to the potential of more immediate economic benefit and a US-centric policy position.

According to the 2023 and 2024 Gallup Surveys, while US top issues suggest that bread-and-butter issues such as the economy, inflation, crime, health, and education are priority ballot concerns, those priorities shift with voters’ ages. Voters should care because these policies address climate change concerns and promote economic growth, public health, and environmental protection. Choosing between these two policy paths will have lasting implications for future generations.

The post Distinct Paths: How White House Climate Policies Shape Innovation and Our Future appeared first on Medika Life.