Happy Friday! The gloves came off and the knives came out at the debate this week, so let’s jump right into the fray.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) came out swinging on Wednesday night in an all-around livelier debate than most we’ve seen this primary season. When it came to health care, few were safe from Warren’s jabs — South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg’s plan was deemed “paper-thin,” Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar’s was so short it could fit on a Post-it note. Even Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (whose plan Warren supports) was criticized as not being realistic or a team player.
Warren wasn’t the only one on the attack. Former Vice President Joe Biden hit at new-comer and billionaire Mike Bloomberg for once upon a time labeling the Affordable Care Act “a disgrace.” But Biden left out some context in that particular attack — such as the fact that Bloomberg was commenting that the law wasn’t enough to fix the deeply flawed health system.
Meanwhile, Midwestern Nice was put to the test as tensions between Buttigieg and Klobuchar boiled over. “You voted to confirm the head of Customs and Border Protection under Trump, who was one of the architects of the family-separation policy,” Buttigieg pointed out. At one point, Klobuchar shot out: “Are you trying to say that I’m dumb? Or are you mocking me here, Pete?”
Buttigieg also tried to get Sanders to take some responsibility for his supporters’ social media behavior. The issue was top of mind this week after a powerful culinary union in Nevada condemned the “vicious attacks” its members were receiving following the union’s criticism of Sanders’ “Medicare for All” plan.
The incident between the union and Sanders’ supporters is the tip of the iceberg of a larger Medicare for All civil war roiling organized labor. On one side, you have liberal unions who argue a government-run plan would free them up to refocus and allow them to concentrate on other important matters. The other side of the coin says there’s no way the health care provided under such a system would be as good as the hard-earned plans they have now.
I was overly optimistic last week in everyone’s desire to adopt an official name for the coronavirus outbreak. Sorry scientists, “COVID-19” does not seem to have taken off, and, at least colloquially, you might be stuck with “coronavirus.” But no matter what it’s called, it is still demanding the world’s attention. Here’s a look at some of the more noteworthy and interesting stories from the week:
— The number of cases in China keeps dropping, in a sign that the outbreak might be stabilizing, at least in the epicenter. But that doesn’t mean anyone should be optimistic (heaven forbid!), because it’s likely cases outside China are on the cusp of blooming into a pandemic.
— The Washington Post peels back the curtain on a fight between the State Department and the CDC over whether infected cruise ship passengers should be flown back to America without telling the other people on the plane. Guess who won …
— Who in our cast of characters holds the responsibility of steering the world through this crisis? (All I keep thinking is: “Responders…Assemble!” Anyone else? Or only your resident Marvel geek here?)
— Why is a hospital in Omaha, Nebraska, making news? Because in the early 2000s a group of doctors and scientists came up with the idea of creating a biocontainment unit there. Not everyone was on board at the time, calling it “overkill.” But nearly two decades of epidemics have proved the skeptics wrong.
— Are computers better at spotting an outbreak before humans’ puny minds can? Well, they’re quicker, certainly, but they lack our finesse. AI is more like an overly anxious car alarm, and disease fighters are still needed to come in and tease out the complexities of the situation.
— More men than women are falling victim to the coronavirus, and that might have something to do with smoking rates.
— The prejudice that tagged along with this outbreak is nothing new. Experts warn that there’s a long history of this kind of reaction, and that if we don’t heed warnings about the consequences of such behavior we’ll just be repeating mistakes of the past again.
— The vast majority of coronavirus cases are mild. But in 2% of cases, it’s brutally lethal. So what’s happening?
— Is COVID-19 here to stay or will it disappear like its coronavirus brethren?
— And, something I had not considered, but with the Olympics coming up, experts say the world needs to have a better grip on the virus before countries should think about attending.
As the Trump administration pushes to increase patients’ access to their electronic health records, tech companies wait hungrily in the wings for the data to slip out from under the protection of HIPAA. Supporters of the administration’s moves say that Big Tech will be mindful of their own brands and reputations and treat the potential of (lucrative, sweeping) health data responsibly. Critics are a little less sure about that rose-colored-glasses view of an industry mired in data-privacy scandals.
Covered California enrollment numbers gave health law supporters something to be smug about this week: Thanks to a state-level individual mandate and more subsidies, the marketplace saw a 41% jump in new sign-ups. Covered California officials were pretty much, like, “See what can be done when you support this model?”
Speaking of California, Gov. Gavin Newsom made a big statement by devoting the entirety of his State of the State address to the homelessness crisis. “Let’s call it what it is. It’s a disgrace,” he said. A main focus for Newsom was the intersection of mental health and homelessness, and what the state can be doing to better help those who need it.
In the miscellaneous file for the week:
— Pharma used to rule the roost on Capitol Hill. But those days are looking more and more like a thing of the past. The WSJ dissects the once-ironclad relationship between the industry and Republicans, and what went wrong for the drugmakers.
— These days we’re used to courts demanding scientific evidence, to jurors being presented with experts in the field when having to make a decision about the medical ramifications of something like a pesticide or other chemical. But that wasn’t always the case. Undark looks back on when that changed, and the family that’s cited so often in court cases their name has become a verb.
— Ever wonder why things are priced to the 99 cents? That’s because of the way people perceive numbers and the greater likelihood you’ll buy something priced at $4.99 versus $5.00. When it comes to pennies, that might seem inconsequential. But it turns out the same kind of thinking can be applied to age — and, thus, decisions about where the cutoff should be on procedures like open-heart surgery.
— Everyone went into the opioid lawsuits with high hopes, buzzing about the possibility of the reckoning (and settlement) being akin to that of Big Tobacco’s in the 1990s. But the reality is likely to be a letdown.
And that’s it from me! Have a great weekend.