During the debate on Thursday, Lester Holt asked the candidates to raise their hands in response to this question:
“Many people watching at home have health insurance through their employer. Who here would abolish their private health insurance in favor of a government-run plan?”
A similar question had been asked the night before. Sen. Warren and Mayor DeBlasio had raised their hands in response. On Thursday, Sen. Sanders and Sen. Harris were the only ones to raise their hands. I was glad to see these candidates making a clear statement on public, universal health insurance coverage.
Sen. Sanders, Warren and Harris co-sponsored the Senate Medicare For All bill, which contains this section:
SEC. 107. PROHIBITION AGAINST DUPLICATING COVERAGE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Beginning on the effective date described in section 106(a), it shall be unlawful for—
(1) a private health insurer to sell health insurance coverage that duplicates the benefits provided under this Act; or
(2) an employer to provide benefits for an employee, former employee, or the dependents of an employee or former employee that duplicate the benefits provided under this Act.
(b) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this Act shall be construed as prohibiting the sale of health insurance coverage for any additional benefits not covered by this Act, including additional benefits that an employer may provide to employees or their dependents, or to former employees or their dependents.
Starting with John Conyers’ Medicare For All proposals in the house, M4A legislation has always included a prohibition on private insurers providing coverage for any services covered by Medicare. Here’s the 2003 bill, which contains essentially the same provision. Since M4A covers all medically necessary care and procedures (including dental and vision), the prohibition is meaningful.
During the debate, Sen. Sanders said again that any remaining private insurance would be purely for cosmetic, non-medically necessary care.
This provision is important. Without it, private insurers would seek to perpetuate a two-tier system of care, where services and providers are reserved for those who can afford to pay a bit more. With this provision in place, providers who don’t take Medicare For All would only be able to serve patients who can pay the entire amount out of pocket, without insurance. This will be a vanishingly small portion of the market. Private insurers understand this:
“As a technical matter, the Medicare-for-all bill would allow private insurers to sell supplemental policies for benefits not covered by the government plan,” Larry Levitt, senior vice president for health reform at the Kaiser Family Foundation, said in May. “As a practical matter, the government plan covers such a comprehensive set of benefits that there would be virtually no role for private insurance.” — www.washingtonpost.com/...
It was thrilling to see four candidates on stage, making an unabashed case for health care that covered all Americans, equally. I was glad to see these major candidates firmly committing to the principle of Health Care as a Human Right.
They weren’t co-opting a popular slogan for a limited proposal, or weaving a story about how eventually, somewhere in the distant future, all Americans would have this right. Which other right do we tell people they have to wait for?
Nor were they saying this important change would be painless or happen without effort. Every right, every freedom we have has been purchased through sacrifice. Power does not relinquish its privilege without struggle. Both Sen. Sanders and Warren have said their ambitious proposals will go nowhere unless millions of people join them before and crucially after the election to pressure the entire political establishment to yield to the public will.
It was exciting to think Sen. Harris had joined them in delivering this clear-eyed message to all Americans.
Then yesterday, Senator Harris issued a deflating “clarification”:
Presidential candidate Kamala Harris said Friday she doesn't support eliminating private insurance, appearing to backtrack from the position she took in the Democratic debate.
Asked in an appearance on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" on Friday if she believed private insurance should be eliminated in the U.S., she said: "No, no. I do not."
Perhaps Sen. Harris means coverage for cosmetic, non-medically necessary procedures when she says private insurance would not be eliminated. But that is clearly not what the various interviewers mean, nor the common understanding of the term.
The strange thing is, Sen. Harris has had to issue clarifications around Medicare For All previously, before she co-sponsored the Senate M4A bill. One would have thought a lawyer and former prosecutor would be able to clearly state the key provisions in major legislation she’s co-sponsoring.
Asked about the issue by CNN in January, Harris appeared to embrace the elimination of private health insurance. “Who of us has not had that situation where you’ve got to wait for approval, and the doctor says, ‘Well, I don’t know if your insurance company is going to cover this’?" she said. “Let’s eliminate all of that. Let’s move on.” Amid a backlash the next day, a Harris campaign aide told CNN the candidate would also be open to other health plans that would preserve private industry. — www.washingtonpost.com/...
So this is where we are. Sen. Warren and Sanders are, I believe, being straight with us when they describe the provisions of the Medicare For All bill, and what it will take to enact it into law. Sen. Booker, Gillibrand and Harris, who are all running for president and have co-sponsored the bill seem to be equivocating on this provision. They are reluctant to clearly tell the American people what it means to have healthcare as a right.
— @subirgrewal