John Delaney on Health Care Democratic candidate for President; U.S. Rep from MD-6

Medicare-for-All creates a two-tier market for healthcare

DELANEY: The bill that Senator Sanders drafted, by definition will lower quality in healthcare, because it says specifically that the rates will be the same as current Medicare rates. And the data is clear, Medicare does not cover the cost of healthcare, it covers 80% of the costs of healthcare in this country. And private insurance covers 120%, so if you start underpaying all the healthcare providers, you're going to create a two tier market where wealthy people buy their healthcare with cash, and the union people will have that healthcare plan taken away; they will be forced into an underfunded system.

SANDERS: Hospitals will save substantial sums of money because they're not going to be spending a fortune doing billing and other bureaucratic things.

DELANEY: I've done the math, it doesn't add up.

Don't be party of subtraction; don't take healthcare away

Rep. Delaney: We can create a universal health care system to give everyone basic health care for free, and I have a proposal to do it. But we don't have to go around and be the party of subtraction, and telling half the country, who has private health insurance, that their health insurance is illegal. It'll underfund the industry, many hospitals will close, and it's bad policy.

SANDERS: The fact is, tens of millions of people lose their health insurance every single year when they change jobs or their employer changes that insurance. If you want stability in the health care system, if you want a system which gives you freedom of choice with regard to a doctor or a hospital, the answer is to get rid of the profiteering of the drug companies and the insurance companies, move to Medicare-for-all.

Math is wrong on Medicare for All

DELANEY: I've done the math, it doesn't add up.

SANDERS: Maybe you did that and made money off of healthcare, but our job is to run a nonprofit healthcare system. [America will save] $500 billion a year by ending all of the incredible complexities of health insurance companies.

DELANEY: His math is wrong. It's been well-documented that if all the bills were paid at Medicare rate, which I think it's in section 1,200 of their bill, then many hospitals in this country would close. Why do we have to be so extreme? Why can't we just give everyone health care as a right, and allow them to have choice? I'm starting to think this is not about health care. This is an anti-private-sector strategy.

BetterCare: I understand the medical business

Keep what's working and fix what's broken

Rep. Beto O'ROURKE: No. Our plan says that if you're insufficiently insured, we enroll you in Medicare. But if your health care plan works for you and your family, you're able to keep it.

Mayor Bill DE BLASIO: You've got to start by acknowledging the system is not working for people. Why are you defending private insurance?

Rep. John DELANEY: 100 million Americans say they like their private health insurance. I think we should be the party that keeps what's working and fixes what's broken. I mean, doesn't that make sense? We should give everyone in this country health care as a basic human right for free, full stop. But we should also give them the option to buy private insurance. Why do we have to stand for taking away something from people?

Medicare-for-All would negatively impact hospitals

Create public option but let people opt out

Supports universal care, not Medicare-for-All

No Medicare for All, but yes universal health care

• Health care: Create universal health care program, but not "Medicare for All."
• Delaney envisions creating a government health care program for all Americans under the age of 65, after which they could enroll in Medicare.
• The plan would enshrine healthcare as a right for all Americans while still allowing people the choice of buying into the private market.
• Delaney opposes "Medicare for All," saying that Medicare works and should be left alone.
• In Congress, he was a vocal supporter of the Affordable Care Act and was open to adding a public option, as well as expanding Medicare for people over the age of 55.

Let 55-year-olds buy into Medicare

The second good part of the ACA consists of adjustments that were made to improve coverage and change incentives. One excellent example is the rule that people with preexisting conditions can no longer be excluded from coverage.

The crucial mistake was the way the health care exchanges were structured. If you're individually insured, or uninsured, and you don't qualify for Medicaid, you can buy insurance on the exchange. But in an effort to protect people between the ages of 55 and 65, the ACA mandated that the exchanges could charge them only up to three times the cost of the cheapest policy on offer. Did someone forget to do the math? Health care costs for people in that age range are, on average, six times what they are for young, healthy people. My solution would be to let people over 55 buy into Medicare.

Allow Medicare to negotiate pharmaceutical pricing

This scandalous arrangement is unacceptable, and the sooner we change it, the better. We should add more "pay for results only" regimes for newly innovative, very expensive drugs. This would allow a handsome payment if a drug worked on a patient, and nothing if it didn't.

Costs would rise too quickly in a single-payer system

I took a few minutes to explain my concerns about a single-payer system--in my view, costs would rise too quickly, and such a system might actually result in patients having worse care than they would have otherwise. I went on to describe my fix for the health care system, which begins with allowing Americans over the age of 55 to get Medicare.

"There's no question every single person in America should have health care," I told her. "That should be the uncompromising values statement of the Democratic Party, but we need to have a really thoughtful debate about how we get there." This point had exactly zero impact. For her, single-payer was a litmus test, These kinds of litmus tests are a real impediment to progress.

ObamaCare ensures access to affordable quality health care

However, one of the problems with the ACA is that it does not do enough to address the long-term costs of the health care system. It is a testament to our health care development that Americans are living longer than ever, but the costs associated with healthcare necessarily increase. I will fight attempts to repeal this landmark legislation, but I believe it is necessary to refine the ACA to create a framework that will lower long-term costs.

Opposes repealing ObamaCare.

Christian Coalition publishes a number of special voter educational materials including the Christian Coalition Voter Guides, which provide voters with critical information about where candidates stand on important faith and family issues. The Christian Coalition Voters Guide summarizes candidate stances on the following topic: "Repealing "Obamacare" that forces citizens to buy insurance or pay a tax"

Opposes repealing ObamaCare.

Project Vote Smart infers candidate issue stances on key topics by summarizing public speeches and public statements. Congressional candidates are given the opportunity to respond in detail; about 11% did so in the 2012 races.

Project Vote Smart summarizes candidate stances on the following topic: 'Health Care: Do you support repealing the 2010 Affordable Care Act?'

Sponsored merging Alzheimers diagnosis and care benefit.

Congressional Summary:The purpose of this Act is to increase diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias, leading to better care and outcomes for Americans living with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias. Congress makes the following findings:

1. As many as half of the estimated 5.2 million Americans with Alzheimer's disease have never received a diagnosis.
2. An early and documented diagnosis and access to care planning services leads to better outcomes for individuals with Alzheimer's disease.
3. Combining the existing Medicare benefits of a diagnostic evaluation and care planning into a single package of services would help ensure that individuals receive an appropriate diagnosis as well as critical information about the disease and available care options.

Proponent's argument for bill: (The Alzheimer's Association, alz.org). The "Health Outcomes, Planning, and Education (HOPE) for Alzheimer's Act" (S.709/H.R. 1507) is one of the Alzheimer's Association's top federal priorities for the 113th Congress. The HOPE for Alzheimer's Act would improve diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease and increase access to information on care and support for newly diagnosed individuals and their families. It would also ensure that an Alzheimer's or dementia diagnosis is documented in the individual's medical record.

GOP can't beat ObamaCare, so they pretend it's a "disaster".

Heritage Action Summary: This vote would fully repeal ObamaCare.

Heritage Foundation recommendation to vote YES: (2/3/2015): ObamaCare creates $1.8 trillion in new health care spending and uses cuts to Medicare spending to help pay for some of it. Millions of Americans already have lost, and more likely will lose, their coverage because of ObamaCare. Many Americans have not been able to keep their doctors as insurers try to offset the added costs of ObamaCare by limiting the number of providers in their networks. In spite of the promise, the law increases the cost of health coverage.

Secretary of Labor Robert Reich recommendation to vote NO: (robertreich.org 11/22/2013): Having failed to defeat the Affordable Care Act, Republicans are now hell-bent on destroying the ObamaCare in Americans' minds, using the word "disaster" whenever mentioning the Act, and demand its repeal. Democrats [should] meet the Republican barrage with three larger truths:

1. The wreck of private insurance: Ours has been the only healthcare system in the world designed to avoid sick people. For-profit insurers have spent billions finding and marketing their policies to healthy people--while rejecting people with preexisting conditions, or at high risk.
2. We could not continue with this travesty of a healthcare system: ObamaCare is a modest solution. It still relies on private insurers--merely setting minimum standards and "exchanges" where customers can compare policies.
3. The moral imperative: Even a clunky compromise like the ACA between a national system of health insurance and a for-profit insurance market depends, fundamentally, on a social compact in which those who are healthier and richer are willing to help those who are sicker and poorer. Such a social compact defines a society.

Legislative outcome: Passed House 239-186-8; never came to a vote in the Senate.