Maad Abu-Ghazalah is a Wilmington-based entrepreneur, patent attorney and software designer. He lived in Saudi Arabia and the West Bank before immigrating to the United States at 17, according information provided by The Carolina Cabinet.
Candidate Q&A
What do you see as the biggest financial and administrative challenge to implementing the work requirements for Medicaid that were included in the One Big Beautiful Bill?
Most people who currently receive Medicaid are either already working or qualify under one of the exemptions. So the biggest challenge is to ensure that people who qualify for Medicaid aren’t thrown off because of not filing the proper paperwork. Another big challenge is to help people who want to work for fear of losing their benefits, but are unable to find a job. If the government requires people to work to receive Medicaid, then they are also responsible for helping them find work if they can’t find any.
What would be your plan for ensuring the future security/strength of Social Security and Medicare?
As a first step, I’d eliminate the cap on payroll tax. As members of society we need to all pay our fair share into the safety net each member of our society deserves. But, along those lines, I’d also eliminate some of the loopholes utilized by the wealthy to avoid contributing to our safety net. For example, income from investments, which for many of the wealthy generates the majority of their overall income, should also be subject to a tax earmarked for social security and Medicare.
What would you support in Congress as a plan to help control health care/ pharmaceutical costs?
I would support a Medicare for All, single-payer plan. The US spends far more on billing and insurance overhead than countries with single-payer systems. I generally believe in the free market, but I make an exception for health insurance because, as a society, we believe people have a right to health care, so government is needed to protect that right. Since a single-payer system is more efficient than one that pays insurance companies, who make a substantial profit, we should make an exception to the free market in this case. Regarding pharmaceuticals, I would support limiting the term of pharmaceuticals’ market exclusivity, which is determined by the FDA above and beyond patent rights. This will allow generic drugs to be sold at a fraction of the price while not infringing on the inventor’s patent rights that are necessary as an incentive for research and development.
What steps would you take to improve access to health care in rural areas? How do we make the Rural Health Transformation Program successful in North Carolina?
I would loosen the rigid licensing rules that prevent nurse practitioners, physician assistants and pharmacists from providing the health care they are fully capable of doing. This would enable rural residents to receive healthcare that might not otherwise be available and shows the outcomes are comparable. The key to making the RHTP successful is to invest in infrastructure since it expires in 5 years. I would use it to help build a rural workforce, e.g. by creating a pipeline from rural high schools into nursing and other health fields. I would also fund telehealth infrastructure since that provides access to people in remote areas.
The rollout of AI is moving fast, including in health care, and leaders in that space are calling for things to slow down. What federal moves should be taken to regulate it, if at all?
Although AI does have inherent risks, it also has great potential in improving our standard of living, especially in the field of health care. At this point, the dangers of AI are not particularly clear so it’s premature to regulate it. However, the government should also not be subsidizing its development and particularly not in the field of government surveillance, which is a known problem since it has already led to instances of abuse.
Where do you stand on federal vaccine policy? What should be done to prevent future disease outbreaks?
I support a federal vaccine mandates in preventing an outbreak of communicable diseases, but only when the efficacy and side effects of the vaccine are known and fully disclosed to the public. The execution of such a policy is what matters. The public needs to be fully informed of both the risks and the benefits of each mandated vaccine, and in cases where the efficacy and/or side effects of vaccines are unknown, individuals should be allowed to opt out.
We’ve had some high-profile food contamination outbreaks, yet the federal government is pulling back on regulation of food, air and water. What level of federal regulation do you support and why?
I am not as concerned about a reduction of federal government regulation of food. This is handled adequately at the local and state level and individuals also have civil law suits at their disposal. My bigger concern is with federal regulation of air and water since civil suits are not practical or effective so the federal government needs to be involved. I support a high level of federal regulation of our natural resources like air and water. Not only must corporations pay for cleaning up polluting our environment, more importantly, they should be prevented from doing so in the first place. This requires a federal assessment of each major corporate project that could potentially impact our environment so we don’t have to deal with a cleanup later, if it’s even possible.
PFAS contamination is a nationwide issue; how do you address it while balancing public safety and business interests?
Although it’s a national issue, it’s particularly an issue in the Cape Fear River region and to privately owned wells in the area. I would fight the EPA rollbacks on PFAS limits. Corporations should not be entitled to pollute simply because it’s inconvenient for them to abide by known safety standards, regardless of the business impact. Our health and environment are more important than corporate profits. Also, PFAS should be regulated as a class. Otherwise it’s too easy for corporations to simply substitute and unregulated PFAS for a regulated PFAS to circumvent the entire oversight system.
The building and placement of data centers have become a big issue, particularly in many rural communities. What should be the federal government’s role, if any, in how these are developed?
I’m a strong opponent of the proliferation of data centers, primarily for environmental reasons but also because a lot of the financial burden is borne by the local residents. Huge areas of land are being converted to concrete monstrosities that pollute our water and replace our natural environment with sterile, lifeless buildings. Ordinary electricity consumers often unknowingly subsidize data centers since these centers require a massive amount of electricity, so electric companies are required to make a massive investment in infrastructure upgrade to satisfy their demand. At the very least, the federal government should require that the cost of that infrastructure upgrade should be paid for by the data centers, not the consumer. I would also ensure that federal agencies are diligent in ensuring the data centers meet air and water pollution standards including regular inspections and stringent reporting requirements.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
