In Iowa, Beto O'Rourke works to find his footing on health care

[TexasTowelie]

by Patrick Svitek, Texas Tribune


DUBUQUE, Iowa — Beto O'Rourke has long advocated for "universal, guaranteed, high-quality health care for all." But how exactly does he think the country should get there?

It is a question that hung over O'Rourke's first few days as a presidential candidate here in this crucial early voting state, where voters and reporters sought more clarity on his approach to arguably the biggest issue in the Democratic primary. It is a race in which many candidates have already embraced some form of Medicare for All, the single-payer health care plan championed by U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.

But O'Rourke has a less-than-straightforward history with Medicare for All, and he continued to keep it at arm's length in Iowa, saying at one point that he is "no longer sure that that’s the fastest way” to achieve universal health care. Instead, he arrived in the Hawkeye State ready to talk about a different health care proposal: Medicare for America.

Introduced in December by U.S. Reps. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut and Jan Schakowsky of Illinois, the legislation would set up a government-run health care program — like Medicare for All — but aims to let people keep their employer-sponsored insurance if they have it and like it.

Read more: https://www.texastribune.org/2019/03/17/beto-orourke-health-care-iowa-tour-presidential-campaign/

[Freddie]

1. I like that approach

Way too many people have employer-provided insurance, don’t pay much for it and are very happy with it. Medicare for America or a similar program could be a springboard to eventually transition to single payer without hurting the people who are doing well in the current “system” and will be resistant to change.

[TexasTowelie]

2. I prefer that there is a mix of available coverages between the public and private sectors.

If health insurance coverage is provided through the government, then it removes the incentive to improve the system and introduce new technological advances. Competition among providers is a positive aspect for me.

I'm reluctant to let the government have too much information about me. If I believe that a private health insurer has too much information about me, then I can always choose a different insurer. With Medicare for All, then I'm stuck with no other options and the government can dictate policies such as mandating which medications I can choose, requiring medical tests, and more. Does anyone want a government official to show up at their place of employment to ask for a urine sample every month because they were arrested for a drug offense decades ago?

[Stellar]

4. Before they do that, I would hope they look into all the rape kits...

...they've been collecting for decades. Private insurance would really be in my pocket, I'd be more concerned with that $50.00 dollar aspirin and other outrageous amounts of money they are making me pay.

[TexasTowelie]

7. Testing of rape kits is something that is done at the local and state levels of government.

Last edited Mon Mar 18, 2019, 09:21 AM - Edit history (1)

I agree that is something which needs to be expedited. However, you have brought up an additional point that if a Medicare For All system begins to collect DNA for all patients then it could have far-reaching effects on the legal system. Could that information be used by the police to catch criminals for relatively insignificant crimes such as petty theft and would it override things like the statute of limitations for a particular crime? If someone is identified as a match, then would that information become available in the records of those individuals even if they are not convicted of a crime? Would the person identified be able to contest that information since it could be used to deny employment, credit, and housing? That is why I am opposed to a single government agency collecting information on everyone--the comparison to "Big Brother" will almost certainly be mentioned by the GOP.

As far as the overly expensive medications are concerned, that issue won't be affected until Medicare is able to negotiate drug pricing. However, it also illustrates that individuals will still have to pay deductibles and co-pays in a M4A system. Could someone be denied medical treatment if they have outstanding bills?

There are simply too many questions that go beyond health care insurance that a M4A system will involve and that makes me uncomfortable.

[Stellar]

9. Agreed!

There should be a national database to catch these a/h!

[Prosper]

3. Sideline but relevant.

As Donald Trump claimed in January, “We’re going to have insurance for everybody.” He continued, “There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can’t pay for it, you don’t get it. That’s not going to happen with us.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/08/opinion/republican-death-wish.html

[MrsCoffee]

12. Why are Trump's lies relevant to this thread?

[Prosper]

14. Reminder

How important it is to remember Trump will try and lie to take the attention away from truthful attempts at solving health care. Trump still has a deathgrip on a firm support base. Every candidate expressing their view should also call attention to Trumps false promise of health care for everybody.

[Renew Deal]

5. He basically supports a "public option"

He doesn’t want to put the health industry out of business. This is what Obama tried to do in 2009.

[TexasTowelie]

11. That is my take on it also.

There will always be a debate about whether health care is a right or a commodity. I've had good health insurance coverage and no health insurance coverage so I see the advantages and disadvantages of both perspectives.

[rgbecker]

6. Cost of health insurance/care is all about the pool.

If private insurance companies are allowed to siphon off the cream, that is the un-sick healthy, that will leave Medicare for America broke trying to take care of everyone else.

Employers will, like now, will reject workers that are a health risk so as not to increase their health insurance costs.

The goody two shoes can say that people should buckle up and take care of themselves better, but please look around you and realize some are just not that lucky and have health issues unrelated to anything they have done.

America, the land of opportunity, should follow up with healthcare as a right...right now.

[TexasTowelie]

8. While I understand your point,

my question is whether all individuals be required to relinquish information (including DNA) to a centralized government authority? That seems Orwellian to me and could affect the individual's ability to gain employment, obtain credit, and housing. Individuals may not be able to contest the information in those systems or even gain access to learn what is in those systems. Essentially, someone could be blackballed for life because of information that is collected in a centralized system. As imperfect as the current system is, I don't believe that anyone wants to adopt a health insurance system that could have implications beyond health care.

[rgbecker]

10. Well, those are all hypothetical worries. None of those things are going on with Medicare...

as far as I know. I'm covered by Medicare and no one has my DNA and there is no Government centralized system of health records kept by the government. In fact all my care is done by the local doctor and hospital and I'm sure the government is only involved with paying the bills not with keeping health records.

That said, there are many articles discussing the future of health care and the value of keeping records on the internet so no matter where you are, you will receive the care needed based on information available instantly. This is a trend even private providers and insurance companies are pursuing and I don't think you are going to be able to stop.

[TexasTowelie]

15. Yes, it's hypothetical but it is also a slippery slope.

If the GOP were to hold the legislative and executive branches, then they could easily adopt new regulations to establish a data warehouse with the intention of denying coverage to people for budgetary reasons. I don't see why anyone would want to make the task easier. While we might idealize the immediate goal of having universal coverage, there wouldn't be much to stop the collection of biometric information, criminal information, and even political affiliation. Imagine if the scope of your medical treatments are influenced by which political party you are registered with? My RW brother who is a respiratory therapist says "kill all Democrats" frequently to me--it is no longer a joke or obnoxious remark, but a threat instead.

The fact that Medicare doesn't collect that information currently is due in part that Medicare covers only the elderly who are less inclined to be involved with unsavory criminal elements so the costs outweigh the benefits. The same mindset may not be true for younger individuals. It's essentially the same argument as to why a national ID system was never adopted. While there are redundancies in the health care field that increases ciost, the fact that there isn't centralized collection of data also provides a safeguard. If someone has a medical record indicating that they had a drug overdose or received treatment (like Naloxone) for a suicide attempt, then that information could be accessed by anyone for any purpose (positive or negative). While we have some protections under HIPPA, there is nothing set in stone and that law can be repealed.

Perhaps I'm a cynic at heart, but I've also found that cynicism has prevented me from making some major blunders in my life.

[stonecutter357]

13. K&R