[ad_1]
Senator from California, Kamala Harris
Saul Loeb / AFP / Getty Images The energy utility that may have triggered the # Killing fire of the camp was declared bankrupt
If you aspired to a Jeb Bush presidency, Howard Schultz is probably your man
What Workers Can Learn from the "Largest Lockout in US History"
Two flights were canceled as virtually no TSA worker arrived at this Louisiana airport
Kamala Harris says she would like to adopt a single payer health care bill.
We do not really know how serious she is about this.
At a public session in Iowa Monday, CNN's Jake Tapper pointed out that the California senator, presidential candidate, had co-sponsored the Medicare for All bill written by Bernie Sanders, who would put all Americans in the place of the president. government-run health plan and prohibit private insurers from offering concurrent coverage. "So, for people who love their insurance, they can not keep it?" Asked Tapper.
Harris, to the surprise of many, looks into the matter with a company no . "Let's eliminate everything," she said about private insurers. "Let's go ahead." The candidate seemed to be laying a flag on the most important issue facing Democrats' health care plans by the year 2020: would they adopt a single-payer plan at Bernie Sanders that largely eliminates the need for a health care plan? 39, private insurance? Or would they be one of many other proposals proposed by legislators to extend government coverage, all of which have been described under "Medicare for all"?
Harris's response delights leftists who see the single payer as a decisive litmus test for candidates. "There is no viable path to the Democratic candidacy for someone who does not support single payer healthcare," said Sean McElwee, founder of Data for Progress (and the guy who made "Abolish ICE" famous) to NBC News. "It's done."
But maybe not. On Tuesday, Harris's team seemed to be creating some room for maneuver. According to CNN, one of its advisers "indicated that the candidate would also be open to more moderate health reform plans, which would preserve the industry, being proposed by other congressional Democrats" . His national press officer then went backwards. -return. "Medicare for all is the plan that, according to her, will solve the problem and allow all Americans to be covered." Period, "said Sams at CNN. "She co-sponsored other bills that she sees as a way to get there, but that's the plan she's put in place." Harris's Senate colleagues also tried to help her. to thread the needle.
All exchanges may seem a little confusing. But basically, Harris's implicit position seems to be very simple: with regard to medicare for all, she is ready to adopt the leftmost bill that is politically feasible.
The problem with this position, of course, is that the single payer is currently at best a long-term strategy, for the reasons that Vox's Dylan Scott has written extensively. The Senate is one of the biggest hurdles, in which a truly single payer plan would need to go beyond the filibuster. Democrats could still eliminate the threshold of 60 votes if they got the majority in the room. But even if they did – and this is a big one – it was not clear that enough senators would vote to end the employer-based insurance system. "It's part of the American economy. There is a system in place to fund it, "Sen. Dick Durbin, Democratic Senator of the Senate, told CNN in second place. "It would take a powerful transition to get from where we are to that."
Basically, the approach "of course, if we can" looks like a loophole .
This does not help that, for the moment, a single payer does not seem to inquire The slogan "Medicare for all" is very popular even among Republicans. But surveys conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation have shown that Americans have only a fuzzy idea of what that would mean. They mistakenly believe that it would allow them to continue. If the health protection system is eliminated, the Pew Research Center has achieved similar results: in September, its poll revealed that only 49% of Democrats and Independents with Democratic tendencies think that the United States should provide insurance disease through a single national program, against 31% among all adults. One of the few things less popular than Donald Trump.
That, of course, could change if the Democrats came forward and pleaded for them. Pew's polls show that the single payer has gained support over time, no doubt thanks to Sanders' efforts. But if a president wants to have the hope of transforming the American health system into a more generous version of Canada, he will have to mobilize much of his energy and political capital to evangelize.
Is Harris willing to do it? This is not clear. Presidents generally have a limited window of opportunity to enact major legislation. And on Monday, Harris told her audience that her primary goal as president would be to pass the LIFT Act, a bill that would essentially give working families an additional allowance of up to $ 500 a month. It is an extremely ambitious bill (with some notable problems) that would cost about $ 3 trillion over a decade, as it is currently written. Now, it is possible that Harris really thinks that she will be able to switch to the welfare state once in a generation and then end private insurance as we know it afterwards. But this idea is, in a way, damaging to credulity.
That's why the confused follow-up of the Harris team on the single payer system – of course, why not, if we can – raise a little bit of concern among the left, where activists fear that democrats will only pay the single word before letting it go. Waleed Shahid, director of communications for the Justice Dems activist group, said:
To be fair to Harris, she's not the only Democrat who seems to take the " sure, "if we can" approach the single payer. Other likely candidates, such as Kirsten Gillibrand and Cory Booker, have endorsed Sanders' single-payer proposal, as well as more moderate ideas in the Senate.
But basically, it sounds like a loophole. It is reasonable for a candidate to say that he or she supports a single payer and is willing to put his or her presidency at stake to achieve it. After all, it's what a significant part of the party, including much of its progressive base, seems to want. It is just as reasonable for a candidate to oppose the private insurance waiver for the moment, since the issue divides the Democrats, is unpopular with the general public, could take the time needed to address issues such as climate change and is not really essential to establish universal health insurance. (In the United Kingdom and Australia, private insurance coexists very well with government insurance schemes.) A debate between these two parties would be enlightening and healthy for the party.
But is talking about one payor only another part of your to-do list? It's a bit hard to swallow.
Help us keep up with news and important questions for you – and
get podcasts and bonus segments without ads,
member content and other benefits.
Join Slate More
[ad_2]
Source link
