Commentary: What GOP, Democrats don’t get about health care

The parties’ polarized views on what to do ignore the benefits of making what we have work better.

By Jan Radoslovich

For The Herald

I’ve spent more than 40 years working in the “guts” of our health care system.

I started as a bedside nurse, then turned to educating, and ended my career as a clinical informatics manager, leading a team of nurses who collaborated with our information technology department to install and maintain an enterprise-wide electronic health record system. I retired in August 2018 and am a current enrollee in Medicare.

As a progressive, I support policies that continue to expand access to affordable health care. As a nurse and Medicare recipient, I’m for focusing on what actually works. I know from my years of experience in the health care system that you can’t get the former if you don’t focus on the latter.

Today, I’m deeply frustrated by our national health care debate. The Republican Party is fixated on undoing the real gains made possible by implementation of the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. The Democratic Party, in turn, is polarized between a Medicare for All proposal that would shrink market and profit opportunities of private insurance companies and a hybrid system that combines private insurance with Medicare for those who want it.

Both parties need to refocus their ideological energy on how to provide insurance to the tens of millions of Americans who are still without coverage, expand on what’s working, and fix what’s not.

The Affordable Care Act made a number of very important changes to how people are able to get access to health insurance, banning claim denials based on pre-existing conditions, ensuring young people can stay on their parents’ plans until age 26, and rejecting lifetime limits on medical spending, among other things.

As matters of policy, these provisions are incredibly popular, and rightfully so. Before the ACA, patients were on the hook personally for out-of-pocket liabilities just as they were at their sickest and most vulnerable. We still have more to do, but the system we have now is a vast improvement over the one we had pre-ACA.

As a Democrat, I’m disappointed that we are not exposing the Republican position for the cynicism and backtracking it represents and are instead creating artificial divisions in our own party where they don’t need to exist. Advancing sound health care policy should be Democrats’ greatest electoral asset going into 2020, but I fear it may become our greatest electoral liability.

The reality of Medicare is that it operates as a patchwork of public and privately funded insurance options, payment systems, and plan requirements. This isn’t unusual, by the way; most countries with publicly funded systems — such as Canada — also have privately funded elements to account for health care needs unmet by the public system. The main policy ideas propelling the “Medicare for All” initiative fundamentally misunderstand this.

There’s also a functional reason for this balance between public and private funding. Any hospital’s chief financial officer will tell you that Medicare pays lower reimbursement rates than private payers. Clinical providers, especially in rural areas, struggle to find the right balance between publicly and privately funded patients so they can make payroll and keep their doors open. Lowering benefit options and reimbursement rates downwards may save the system money, sure, but will also result in barriers to care and could limit treatment options.

The system we have now may not be the one we would draw up on a white board if given the chance, but this is not an academic exercise. This is about people’s lives and well-being, not who has the best sound bite. Right now, the main health care policy proposals of both parties seem designed for their respective voting bases rather than expanding on what actually works.

Good policy makes good politics; in both regards, let’s focus on supporting and enhancing proven solutions in our health care insurance system. Too many patients have too much at stake to risk access to care to achieve ideological ends.

Jan Radoslovich, a registered nurse with a master’s in nursing, retired from the University of Washington’s Northwest Hospital and Medical Center in Seattle.

Talk to us

> Give us your news tips.

> Send us a letter to the editor.

> More Herald contact information.

More in Opinion

**EMBARGO: No electronic distribution, Web posting or street sales before Saturday at 3:00 a.m. ET on Mar. 1, 2025. No exceptions for any reasons. EMBARGO set by source.** House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, (D-NY) speaks at a news conference about Republicans’ potential budget cuts to Medicaid, at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, Feb. 27, 2025. As Republicans push a budget resolution through Congress that will almost certainly require Medicaid cuts to finance a huge tax reduction, Democrats see an opening to use the same strategy in 2026 that won them back the House in 2018. (Kenny Holston/The New York Times)
Editorial: Don’t gut Medicaid for richest Americans’ tax cuts

Extending tax cuts, as promised by Republicans, would likely force damaging cuts to Medicaid.

Comment: Learning costs of ignoring environment the hard way

EPA chief Lee Zeldin can’t flip a switch on protections, but we’ll lose precious momentum on climate.

Comment: What promise to ‘review the data’ could mean for health

Noncommittal responses from the FDA nominee show a willingness to follow Trump’s whims, not science.

Collins: How well have you followed Trump 2.0’s initial days?

Honestly, if you get a perfect score, why have you not already applied for Canadian citizenship?

Polgreen: ‘A kind of vandalism’ threatens the First Amendment

There’s a message in the arrest of a legal resident who protested for Gaza: you have no right to speak.

FILE — Smog in the Manhattan borough of New York on Thanksgiving Day, Nov. 24, 1966. A century ago, a well-ventilated building could be a bulwark against disease, but with the arrival of COVID-19, when buildings could barely breathe, Americans gained a renewed appreciation for the health benefits of clean air. (Neal Boenzi/The New York Times)
Comment: What a loss of clean air rules could cost us

For more than 50 years, the rules have been a benefit to the economy as much as Americans’ health.

Two workers walk past a train following a press event at the Lynnwood City Center Link Station on Friday, June 7, 2024, in Lynnwood, Washington. (Ryan Berry / The Herald)
Editorial: Open Sound Transit CEO hiring to public review

One finalist is known; the King County executive. All finalists should make their pitch to the public.

Sen. Noel Frame, D-Seattle. (Washington State Standard)
Editorial: Hold clergy to duty to report child abuse

Teachers, health care providers and others must report suspected abuse. Clergy should as well.

Workers at MW's Cascade Recycling Center in Woodinville remove large unrecyclable materials, like plastic sheeting, from a conveyor belt. Optical scanners and other equipment sort most of the material processed at the center. (The Herald)
Editorial: Encourage recycling by increasing use of material

Recycling legislation can create a better market for material by increasing its use in packaging.

RGB version
Editorial cartoons for Sunday, March 16

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

Cmobine state retirement systems to save $600M

Sen. June Robinson’s Senate Bill 5085 passed the Senate Floor on March… Continue reading

Support local journalism

If you value local news, make a gift now to support the trusted journalism you get in The Daily Herald. Donations processed in this system are not tax deductible.