Posts

Peterson Weighs In on Objections to Becerra’s Nomination

An article examining opposition to the confirmation of Health and Human Services Secretary nominee Xavier Becerra cited Public Policy Professor Mark Peterson. Conservative groups are targeting Becerra’s long track record in support of government-run health care, calling it “hostile to our current system.” However, the article from Politifact and Kaiser Health News noted that President Joe Biden does not support “Medicare for All,” meaning that Becerra’s ability to advance it would be constrained if he is confirmed. Becerra is California’s attorney general, and Peterson said Republicans have a history of painting Democrats from the state as “socialists.” “They’re arguing it’s just showing the infiltration of the radical socialist California state into the federal government,” Peterson said. “But this is ridiculous, because there are not socialist politics, per se, happening in California, and often the California Democrats in Washington are moderate.”

Peterson Weighs In on Sanders’ ‘Medicare for All’ Plan

Public Policy Professor Mark Peterson was cited in a New York Times article discussing the prospects for Sen. Bernie Sanders’ “Medicare for All” proposal. Even if elected president, Sanders would probably not have sufficient support in Congress to achieve universal health coverage, the article noted. In the past 70 years, no legislation to advance universal health care has succeeded without Democratic control of all three branches of government and a supermajority in the Senate, which Sanders would be unlikely to have. Peterson pointed out that even if the rules were changed to require a simple majority to pass the legislation, “there is not any guarantee that the 51st Democrat would be willing to support Medicare for All or anything close to it.” Many Democrats in the House and Senate oppose Medicare for All, advocating instead for improving the Affordable Care Act or pursuing a new government-run “public option” that would compete with private insurance.


U.S. Senate Is Stumbling Block for Universal Health Care, Peterson Says

Professor of Public Policy Mark Peterson was featured in a Health Affairs article discussing the feasibility of “Medicare for All” in the United States. Healthcare coverage has been a frequent topic of debate in the 2020 presidential campaign. The article takes a closer look at six significant efforts to advance universal health care since 1950 and finds that the only serious efforts to advance coverage have occurred during periods of unified Democratic control of the White House, Senate and House of Representatives, known as the Trifecta. “To explain in brief the problematic politics of [health] reform in the U.S., just enunciate four simple words: the United States Senate,” Peterson said. “It is likely to remain the biggest stumbling block in the years ahead.” While hopes for a Democratic supermajority in 2021 are low, the article points to alternative pathways to universal coverage that are less extreme than “Medicare for All.”


Peterson on ‘Medicare for All’: Balancing Ambition and Statecraft

The November issue of the American Journal of Public Health features an article authored by Public Policy Professor Mark Peterson on the debate surrounding government-run “Medicare for All” healthcare coverage. The article, “Enacting Medicare for All: Balancing Ambition With the Needs of Statecraft,” highlights the leadership and coalition-building skills necessary to enact Medicare for All. Peterson draws on his practical experience as a legislative assistant for health policy in the office of South Dakota Democratic Sen. Tom Daschle during the 1990s as well as extensive research on the politics of health reform. Peterson is currently working on a new manuscript, “American Sisyphus: Health Care and the Challenge of Transformative Policymaking,” that explores public attitudes, interest group dynamics and leadership contexts over the past 100 years. He argues that “2009 to 2010 during the Obama presidency was the most advantageous political setting in U.S. history for comprehensive health care reform” and points to the U.S. Senate as “the biggest stumbling block” of the politics of reform in the United States. Looking to the 2020 presidential election, Peterson highlights the lack of clarity surrounding the topic of Medicare for All, which he explains “means different things to different people.” According to Peterson, the idea of Medicare for All is “motivational poetry for many” but actual implementation requires adaptation and skilled coalition-building. Peterson concludes by recommending that “candidates with the shared commitment to universal coverage avoid forming a circular firing squad, both on the campaign trail and once in office.” 


Peterson on Proposals to Eliminate Private Health Insurance

Public Policy Professor Mark Peterson spoke to Elite Daily about the potential repercussions of eliminating private health insurance, a point of debate among those vying for the Democratic presidential nomination. The candidates disagree on whether to allow private insurers to coexist, and compete, with a government-run insurance system. Peterson noted that most other countries with state-run health-care systems allow private insurers to fill gaps in coverage or, for those willing to pay, receive speedier care. He added that eliminating private health insurance could cost millions of jobs. “Whether you think the private insurance industry and health care realm is evil or good, there are a lot of people employed,” he said. Peterson also noted that many Americans prefer that their health care needs be met through the private sector.  “For a lot of people in the United States there is a deep skepticism of government,” he said.