[Review] What if the coronavirus brought down Donald Trump?

By causing an economic crisis and putting the American healthcare system at the centre of the campaign, the coronavirus pandemic could lead to the defeat of the American president in the presidential election next November.

Unthinkable a few months ago, the terrible epidemic of coronavirus that is sweeping the human world will have unpredictable political effects. As for the United States, the economic crisis that is increasing day by day now makes the re-election of Donald Trump highly uncertain.

The American president, very confident after his acquittal during the impeachment procedure, bet on an adversary considered vulnerable (Bernie Sanders) and on a flourishing economy. Quite the opposite should happen: he will most likely face an experienced and reassuring Democrat (Joe Biden) in the catastrophic context of an economy in recession. The possibility of a defeat for the outgoing head of state, therefore, becomes very conceivable.

One of the central issues of the electoral campaign will be more than ever the American healthcare system. At present, it is unknown how it will withstand the influx of thousands of coronavirus patients.

Poor health situation

This is all the more true since the health situation in the United States is not sparkling in normal times, far from it. Take for example the infant mortality rate, a very good indicator of preventive and curative medicine: the United States is in 33rd place in the world, with 5.9 children under the age of 1 who died per 1,000 births, against 3.9 on average in OECD countries, and with significant regional variations (3.9 in Vermont and New Hampshire, 8.9 in Mississippi).

The other public health indicators point in the same direction: the American health situation is poor compared to that of other rich countries. However, Americans spend 17% of their GDP on health each year ($ 3.6 trillion in 2018), more than other rich countries (11.5% in France, for example) and that African states (between 5% and 6% on average south of the Sahara).

But their expenses are not up to the results. At issue: the prohibitive cost of medical and health services. Americans use it no more than others, they are simply the most expensive in the world.

This has an important consequence: inequality in access to care. The United States has state-of-the-art equipment, its doctors are among the best in the world, and it has an unparalleled number of Nobel Prize winners in medicine (99 to date). But they also let people die for lack of money to get the proper care.

However, the emblematic health insurance law of the Obama presidency (Obamacare), passed in 2010 and applied since 2014, has had positive effects. This law implements financial assistance from the federal state so that all Americans can purchase private health insurance. Twenty million citizens have benefited, but 10% of them still do not have health coverage.

Despite Trump's campaign promises, Republicans have failed to dismantle Obamacare. But they tried to unravel it wire by line. So she lost some of her strength when we needed it most.

Health inequalities

In fact, the coronavirus crisis will bluntly expose health inequalities in the United States. The wealthiest have priority to be tested, or even to be treated. The poorest will pass after.

Like Britain and other European countries, the United States is not ready to face the epidemic, and the lack of equipment is already being felt in many hospitals. If to these old difficulties of access to care is now added a great economic depression - the vertiginous rise in unemployment is a sign, - then the number of Americans reached by the Covid-19 and unable to treat themselves could be dramatically high.

The only solution is massive intervention by the federal state, in partnership with regional and local authorities (federal states, cities and counties), which is not guaranteed at present.

On the one hand, because the American government is mainly occupied in supporting an economy on the brink of the abyss, and does not give the impression of having really grasped the extent of the catastrophe to come. 

For several weeks, Trump thus put the impact of the virus into perspective and explained that it was a bully of the Democrats. Now he recognizes reality, which is already progress, but leaves it to state governors to manage the necessary equipment: "Get by!" He said delicately.

Donald Trump at a press conference on the coronavirus in Washington, March 25, 2020.

WE ARE VERY FAR FROM A UNIFYING HEAD OF STATE, LIKE FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT DURING THE SECOND WORLD WAR

On the other hand, because national unity is not guaranteed on the subject. Trump now adorns himself with the pompous title of "wartime president", but, in his eyes, the enemy is not only the virus, but also China and Joe Biden. In short, we are very far from a unifying head of state, like Franklin Roosevelt during the Second World War. Under the current circumstances, which call for a great president, in any case, a man who rises to the height of his office, Trump remains Trump.

We must now consider the effect of the epidemic on the presidential campaign: if health issues take centre stage, then two immediate consequences could ensue. First, the Obamacare law, even if it is insufficient, would be definitively saved: who would now dare to plead for a disengagement from the State? Then, the massive budget cuts inflicted by Trump on the federal health budget (public hospitals and research) would be called into question. Which candidate for the election would dare to plead for less State in bad weather?