Former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Kamala Harris inadvertently highlighted one of the key virtues of Medicare for All with their jumbled, vague, and at times dishonest healthcare discussion during Wednesday night’s Democratic presidential primary debate.
That was a major takeaway of progressives and health policy experts, who said Harris and Biden’s difficulty in explaining the details and benefits their respective proposals showed by comparison the simplicity — and, single-payer proponents argued, the superiority — of Medicare for All in both messaging and policy.
“This flailing discussion is a good demonstration of why Medicare for All makes for great messaging,” tweeted The Week’s Ryan Cooper. “All these complicated-ass half-measures are impossible to explain.”
Biden and Harris released their healthcare proposals in the days leading up to the second Democratic presidential debate, and both were criticized as inadequate to the task of overhauling America’s deadly, profit-driven status quo.
The former vice president’s plan would create a public option and expand Affordable Care Act subsidies. Harris’s proposal, which she misleadingly described as “Medicare for All,” would expand Medicare and preserve a major role for private insurance.
Analysts said the inadequacies of both plans were on display on the debate stage Wednesday night, just 24 hours after Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) forcefully defended Medicare for All from attacks by right-wing Democratic candidates.
“For all its other pros and cons, single-payer’s not-so-secret weapon is its simplicity,” tweeted The Washington Post’s Jeff Stein. “So clear and easy to explain: Everybody in; nobody out; no healthcare costs.”
By contrast, Stein pointed to Biden’s explanation of his plan, which — by his campaign’s own admission — would leave millions of Americans uninsured.
“They can buy into this plan,” Biden said of Americans who currently have employer-sponsored insurance. “And they can buy into it with a $1,000 deductible and never have to pay more than 8.5 percent of their income when they do it.”
Biden went on to bash Medicare for All in a way that showed, as Splinter’s Libby Watson put it, he “does not have a good grip on how healthcare works.”
“The fact of the matter is that there will be a deductible,” Biden said of Medicare for All, which would in fact eliminate premiums, co-pays, and deductibles. “It will be a deductible on their paycheck. Bernie acknowledges it. Bernie acknowledges it. Thirty trillion dollars has to ultimately be paid… I tell ya, that’s a lot of money, and there will be a deductible. The deductible will be out of your paycheck, because that’s what will be required.”
Under Medicare for All, Americans will see a new type of deductible in their paycheck. Medicare for All costs $30 trillion. Not sure what math they do in New York or California but that would be a lot of money. pic.twitter.com/ifctf8g7pB
— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) August 1, 2019
As Watson noted, “Biden seemed very confused about basic questions of health insurance.”
“He initially claimed his plan would limit co-pays to $1,000, then corrected himself later to say there would be $1,000 deductibles — but then said that Sanders’ plan has ‘a deductible in the paycheck.’ This, for a start, is not a thing — a deductible is the amount of money you have to spend on healthcare before the insurance company will chip in, not something that comes out of your paycheck.
“Presumably, he means a premium, but that’s not true, either,” Watson added. “Sanders’s plan has no premiums.”
David Sirota, Sanders’s speechwriter, said Biden’s plan would still leave families with large healthcare bills:
https://twitter.com/davidsirota/status/1156731470267817984
Harris, for her part, was accused of “appropriating” Medicare for All as a mere “brand” while advocating a plan that the lead House sponsor of the Medicare for All Act of 2019 said is decidedly not Medicare for All.
“The reality is that our plan will bring healthcare to all Americans under a Medicare for All system,” Harris said, remaining vague about the significant role carved out for private insurers under her proposal.
The California Democrat said she crafted her plan after “listening to American families, listening to experts, listening to healthcare providers.”
“I listened to the American families who said four years is just not enough to transition into this new plan,” Harris said, referring to the transition period proposed by Sanders’s legislation, “so I devised a plan where it’s going to be 10 years of a transition. I listened to American families who said I want an option that will be under your Medicare system that allows a private plan.”
Harris responds to Biden's criticisms: "Unfortunately, Vice President Biden, you're just simply inaccurate in what you're describing. The reality is that our plan will bring healthcare to all Americans under a Medicare for All system" #DemDebate pic.twitter.com/YNPTiUh7Pu
— CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) August 1, 2019
Larry Levitt, a health policy expert at the Kaiser Family Foundation, told The Washington Post after Wednesday night’s debate that, “A pure Medicare for All plan is much easier to describe than these complicated plans that try to thread the political needle.”
According to Watson, the debate provided clear evidence that “[n]o one up there gives a shit about whether Medicare for All happens.”
“Without Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren there to make a real case for Medicare for All, the debate meanders,” Watson wrote. “Since her mix-up on private insurance earlier this year, I’ve thought that the most likely outcome under a President Kamala Harris would be her getting into office and ending up supporting a public option at best. Tonight’s discussion did nothing to dispel that.”
Joe Sanburg, advisory board member with Business for Medicare for All, said in a statement Wednesday night that the United States needs “a true Medicare for All system — not something that sounds like it, but really relies on private health insurance companies.”
“A plan that would not remove health insurers, the middle men, from our healthcare payment system is not the answer,” said Sanburg.
Truthout Is Preparing to Meet Trump’s Agenda With Resistance at Every Turn
Dear Truthout Community,
If you feel rage, despondency, confusion and deep fear today, you are not alone. We’re feeling it too. We are heartsick. Facing down Trump’s fascist agenda, we are desperately worried about the most vulnerable people among us, including our loved ones and everyone in the Truthout community, and our minds are racing a million miles a minute to try to map out all that needs to be done.
We must give ourselves space to grieve and feel our fear, feel our rage, and keep in the forefront of our mind the stark truth that millions of real human lives are on the line. And simultaneously, we’ve got to get to work, take stock of our resources, and prepare to throw ourselves full force into the movement.
Journalism is a linchpin of that movement. Even as we are reeling, we’re summoning up all the energy we can to face down what’s coming, because we know that one of the sharpest weapons against fascism is publishing the truth.
There are many terrifying planks to the Trump agenda, and we plan to devote ourselves to reporting thoroughly on each one and, crucially, covering the movements resisting them. We also recognize that Trump is a dire threat to journalism itself, and that we must take this seriously from the outset.
After the election, the four of us sat down to have some hard but necessary conversations about Truthout under a Trump presidency. How would we defend our publication from an avalanche of far right lawsuits that seek to bankrupt us? How would we keep our reporters safe if they need to cover outbreaks of political violence, or if they are targeted by authorities? How will we urgently produce the practical analysis, tools and movement coverage that you need right now — breaking through our normal routines to meet a terrifying moment in ways that best serve you?
It will be a tough, scary four years to produce social justice-driven journalism. We need to deliver news, strategy, liberatory ideas, tools and movement-sparking solutions with a force that we never have had to before. And at the same time, we desperately need to protect our ability to do so.
We know this is such a painful moment and donations may understandably be the last thing on your mind. But we must ask for your support, which is needed in a new and urgent way.
We promise we will kick into an even higher gear to give you truthful news that cuts against the disinformation and vitriol and hate and violence. We promise to publish analyses that will serve the needs of the movements we all rely on to survive the next four years, and even build for the future. We promise to be responsive, to recognize you as members of our community with a vital stake and voice in this work.
Please dig deep if you can, but a donation of any amount will be a truly meaningful and tangible action in this cataclysmic historical moment.
We’re with you. Let’s do all we can to move forward together.
With love, rage, and solidarity,
Maya, Negin, Saima, and Ziggy