Harris is flip flopping, and it's disgraceful. She's now trying to backtrack her obviously un-electable posture that she espoused right out of the gate.
Candidate speaks with forked tongue.
Others on the stage this week need to take her to task for her hypocrisy.
1
I am amazed at the conceept of "medicare for all". I actually now pay more for medicare than I once did for private insurance!
On the other hand, I once , when I was very poor, had Medicaid. I found the medicaid system to be far sipler to use and the system allowed for all the essential and some other tpes of medical care. I even recall many poor people calling it,(with tongue in cheek) the Credt Card, for their health care as once a person wa coveed, they were able to obtain essentially all they needed. While private rooms and color TV back in 1973 were not included, surgery, emergency treatment and even dental care asnd eyegallses were easily obtained. Medical prescriptions were all paid for as I recall.
If I had my druthers, I would take medicaid over medicare any day.
"A single-payer health plan requires people with other forms of comprehensive health insurance to switch".
Not in Canada it doesn't. We have (optional) private insurance as well, if we want it, often through employers. Our provincial plans cover most things but not all, and private insurance - like "Medicare Advantage" is widely available from a range of insurers.
Dental insurance in particular is almost entirely private, as are private and semi-private hospital rooms; Quebec has pharmacare but other provinces do not, although plans are in the works for that to happen nationwide.
1
These candidates have made a choice...
Are you for the corporatization of health care delivery (corporate socialism), where Profit comes first before Care?
I really think they all have except for Bernie!
5
Harris has proved to be dishonest when it suits her. An example is her attempts to sell herself as an African American when she is only 25% African American and 50% Indian American.
Her mother was from India. her father divorced her mother when Kamala was only 7 and she was brought up by her mother.
Yet she never mentions her Indian part when campaigning.
8
@Indian Diner So? Trump never mentions his German part.
2
This is not a big problem. Add a public option, essentially Medicare, to the Affordable Care Act. People will see for themselves that private insurance companies will not be able to compete. A smooth transition to single payer will then take place. Why people like Bernie Sanders can't grasp this is beyond me.
2
@James Ward Exactly! This would be a logical way to approach the problem. Sanders is insane to believe that you can eliminate private insurance overnight.
I think the politicians are as confused as we are. Medicare for All is indeed vague. “(It)… will cover all doctors and hospitals, and include no co-payments or deductibles.” How is the proposed Medicare for All different than the current Medicare system—which does NOT cover ALL doctors or medications? I still must pay for supplemental insurance and out-of-pocket costs. Dems need to do a better job communicating what this proposal actually means.
5
I think what some candidates mean is, "Every citizen would automatically qualify for the government's single-payer primary health plan. For those who wish to purchase private, supplemental health insurance, that option would remain."
Not all candidates mean that. But for those that do, please just SAY it!
Don't leave us guessing whether "no" private insurance means, "none at all, for anyone, at any price: the whole industry ends immediately" or "no need for private insurance, and the government plan would always be primary; but this being a complex society with a free market, private supplemental options will continue just as they do in Canada, England and other countries with national health."
If it's the latter option, then employers can still provide supplemental policies as a perk (like group dental, vision etc). Point being: employees can still be rewarded and incentivized, without voting against the entirety of nationalized health.
Repeatedly I hear "Medicare for all" and have no idea what, exactly, is meant. Medicare supplements are available now, do they go away? Why? What harm do supplemental policies do? - Oh, you didn't mean that they go away? Then why say "no more private insurance" if you don't mean it?
Candidates: Please say what you mean, and mean what you say.
7
@Jacksonville
Most candidates support keeping the current arrangement because it involves people making megabucks investing in Healthcare delivery.
Its the favorite table in the Wall Street casino!
3
Bernie Sanders is not confused about health care. Just sayin.
4
I would dearly love to have a Medicare for all option whether I have the choice to buy it or am required to have it because it becomes the only primary insurer in the U.S.
HOWEVER, we need to be honest about the possibility that certain doctors who don't like what the new Medicare for all reimburses may drop out of the system and take only self-pay patients. I think this factors into some people's worries about what could happen if they're forced to switch to Medicare for all and private insurance is abolished.
Any candidate proposing such a shift toward Medicare for all needs to address how they will keep doctors from jumping ship, either by incentive or mandate (always a tricky proposition in the Land of the Free). We already have a severe shortage of primary care providers, currently among the most poorly reimbursed despite being at the front line of healthcare, so this is a serious issue to address.
5
@TMBM
90% of docs take Medicare right now.
Why should they drop out?
1
Most docs have a very small profit margin or break even on patients with Medicare and Medicaid. The margin on private insurance is much larger and keeps the system afloat. Medicare for all at the current reimbursement rates would not be sustainable. Docs would need to see many more patients in less time to make a living. Quality and patient connection would suffer. I suspect the care that’d be delivered with Medicare for all would be very different than what US patients have come to expect. @One Nurse
2
@TSMD Kaiser would be the model imo. And I don't see too many physicians dropping out of that system.
Until Kamala's confusing instant hand-raise to response of rejecting private insurance at the second debate, I was unfailingly in support for her being my only choice for the Democratic nomination. Now not so sure. I've been waiting for her to clarify her so-called misunderstanding the question. She's done it before. I believe that a single payer system would be best in the long run--but that's a very long run. Undoing the whole system is a bear, which no one to date has solved. Until Kamala makes clear statements, Tweets, appearance on Fox, that she favors as many choices benefiting patients, such as Medicare for all AND private insurance, I will not send her more money nor will I vote for her! She has to undue the damage she created by her hand raise. Otherwise we'll have a Trumpian wannabe, and I've reached my limit on obfuscated statements.
3
Medicare as we know it is a public-private insurance system. BTW when I worked a a college there were students employed PT who decided whether certain claims were to be allowed. My surgeon threatened to sue the claims rep for practicing diagnostic medicine without a license, with no qualifications yet over ruling competent medical professionals, My claim was quickly approved.
3
When your employers all say that they don't want to pay for health insurance, or scale back so you pay more and more and get less and less, or force you into early retirement so you need to look at individual plans in the marketplace and you are paying $6500 per year for a crummy HMO with a $7400 deductible (the cheapest bronze plan), then you will see why so many of us HATE private insurers. There is not enough competition to make private insurers care about us, their subscribers-all they care about is profits. If private insurer bloodsuckers would all jump off a cliff right now, that would be fine with a lot of hardworking ripped-off people.
5
Can someone please explain to me why it is at all rational that we entrust our employers with such an important and personal decision as our choice of health care plans? Employers owe us no duty of care, and they have no incentive to provide us with adequate health care plans other than the vague need to be competitive with other employers prospective employees. And yet, we seek to perpetuate this system because "Medicare is scary".
4
FDR wage freezes in WW2 lead to employers offering fringe benefits such as health insurance. After the war the benefits remained an important recruiting tool
3
@AJF
Yes, Im all for disconnecting health care from the job.
We have become an indentured labor force, foregoing wage increases and working harder than ever.
The corporatists love this arrangement!
Keeping wages low translates into more investor wealth, now to the scale of Grand Theft!
The architects of Affordable Care Act were careful to leave employer health care out of the plans.
Many unions want things to stay the way they are too. Less work for them than to start fighting for better wages.
2
I think Senator Harris has been a good senator. However, I would not vote for her for president. The people need more options, not fewer. Also, Healthcare options in this country is not nearly ready to go solo. At present, I would not use public health programs unless I had to.
1
How much does it really matter whether Kamala Harris can be labeled as a genuine Progressive? That is, apart from her campaign strategy. I'm much more interested in what we can expect her to actually do. I'm much more interested in what we can expect each of the candidates to actually do than I am in how they're labeled. Except for Trump--we've seen too much of what he does and he deserves all of the labeling he gets. But that's why it matters so much what the other candidates will actually do.
2
C'mon: give her a break. It's not easy to fake left without annoying the donors or the left catching on.
She'll be fine: the latte-sippers will simply see her Narrative as Deeply Inspiring and Something They Can Identify With.
Policy? History of a spine? Pfft.
You: "That's just negative thinking: Doug, you're clearly not being mindful enough about visualizing how much your Story is her Story. You must be both racist and sexist: How could you possibly not thrill to a black female candidate? Hater!"
Me: "You're right. I'll write in Condi Rice."
3
Harris is on record for wanting to take away people’s private health insurance.
She can “clarify”. She can deny.
She can walk it back. Heck, she can run it back like Usain Bolt.
It doesn’t matter. The video doesn’t lie.
In the unlikely event she is the Democratic nominee, the video will be played at least 100,000 times. And that’s in swing states alone.
8
I think one of the biggest questions regarding the affordability of Medicare For All is what happens to all the money companies spend on their employees healthcare after that legislation is passed? Is the assumption that that money, in its entirety, will be redirected to Medicare or realized as massive pay increases to every employee? How would that be guaranteed?
It seems logical that if universal health insurance reduces the cost of care per capita by the degree typically found in other nations, then whatever the aggregate America now pay is well above what would be needed under the new system. Since the conversation assumes tax increases, that must mean the expectation is that corporate dollars currently earmarked for healthcare will not be totally reallocated or dispersed as pay increases. That is a scandal, and equals a major erosion of most people’s total compensation package and a huge giveaway to corporate America.
1
@DH: If part of the compensation that people receive now is in the form of health insurance and they continue to receive equivalent insurance then their effective compensation hasn't changed. Corporations may look like they will receive a bonus in the form of reduced costs for employee health insurance but corporations would be taxed, too. America as a whole can pay much less for healthcare--individuals and corporations both. Who benefits the most will depend on how the plan is implemented. It is not necessarily a giveaway for anyone. A responsible government should see to that.
4
@Stan Sutton
No, with true Medicare for All, employers will pay more taxes AND they will pay more wages!
No more gravy train for Corps AND their Investors!
2
I’m sort of sick and tired of the mainstream media reducing complex issues to the level of “raise your hand if you favor this.”
The Times is only barely better than Lester Holt in this regard. Does the Upshot imagine that “employer provided private health insurance” comes without a major cost?
My wife runs a dental clinic for union members. The lowest paid employees, clerks and dental assistants, if they have families, get as mich of their compensation in health insurance premiums paid as they do in salary, sometimes more. Now that our younger daughter is aging out of eligibility for this insurance, her employer will be shelling out $25,000 in premiums for just the two of us, every year.
But even couching these proposals as “Medicare for all” is misleading. What this article muddled as “copayments and deductibles,” is really quite different. Medicare for seniors sge 65 and up, pays a very easy to understand 80% of usual and customary charges. Seniors are free to pursue private Medigap policies to address that other 20%, which could be an astonishing sum for cardiac hospitalization, or a joint replacement procedure.
But Elizabeth Warren is right to point out that for profit health insurers booked a $23 Billion PROFIT last year, after they paid ma$$ive salaries to executives, their perks, and dividends to shareholders. $23B was the bottom line. That could go a long way toward covering the uninsured. How does Sanders arrive at no premium, no copay? Both exist in Medicare now.
9
@Paul
Dividends are not deducted when calculating profits.
Kamala Harris is Avery appealing candidate in that she delivers a sort of soothing oratory, ala Obama that engenders trust, she is physically appealing as well which like it or not plays a huge part in getting someone elected. The trouble I have with Kamala is I know too much about her having spent most of my life living in San Francisco. My memories of Kamala are as the girlfriend of Willie Brown, a schmoozer if there ever was one, and as a beautifully dressed woman riding around in a silver Range Rover. I have the feeling she’s very much part of the Clinton model of Republican Lite Democrat whose a gifted conversationalist but always has an eye on the bottom line especially her own. Sorry Kamala, you’re a lovely lady, you might be able to upstage Trump in a debate and it was always a pleasure seeing you at the health club on Third Street but to pass yourself off as a progressive is completely disingenuous.
13
Harris is no Obama.
1
@Mssr. Pleure Agreed. She doesn't come close to Obama. She seems smart but also something of an opportunist imo. And not a great track record as AG in my state.
2
Getting rid of private insurance is a mistake in my opinion. Let people keep their private health insurance plans if they like it. Phase in a public option for those people who do not get insurance that they like through their job. Phase it in over time so as not to overwhelm the medicare system. My dad was an ultra conservative and he was ecstatic the day he went on medicare.
4
@Gone Coastal
What about all the people who have individual plans and are paying $6400 per year for premiums for crummy little bronze HMO plans with $7400 deductible and $50 copay to see the doc we had to find because our doc of 20 years is not in the network-We think private insurance is a ripoff.
2
Bronze policies on ACA exchanges aren’t employer insurance. They are private insurance that complies with government-mandates. Big difference (although ACA taxes make employer plans less generous).
Fund an hsa for the deductible. If you live healthy, unlikely to exceed the deductible (most spending is on acute needs, like cancer or heart attack. Low probability of occurring but expensive if incurred).
3
Yes, Medicare for all... What could possibly go wrong with this under future GOP administrations? I'm sure they can be totally trusted not to make politically motivated decisions to limit access or cut programs/care.
6
@c Excellent point I'm sure many, myself included, have never considered. And I've got a very long list of negatives on it. Now one more, thanks!
3
Prosecuting attorneys are trained for years to prosecute, using whatever angle possible to win. Winning is the main object regardless of values. The case must be presented to get the most emotional response, from the jury (us) and this skill is diligently practiced many times. The "kill' is saved for the right time and applied with academy award precision.
We must be careful when choosing a leader for this country. The leader now, though underestimated, is more skilled at many psychologically governing techniques.
Study the candidates, keep the band wagons moving slow, wait till they all show their true colors.
I am writing Bernie in if I must, one vote, my vote. The DNC can vote too, just not with my vote.
4
I have been watching all the Town Halls, interviews, etc. with all the candidates since January. I was absolutely underwhelmed when I watched Harris' first Town Hall. She didn't seem prepared, wasn't able to answer the questions coherently, couldn't answer a comment from a farmer, etc. She impresses me as someone who is very superficial and just adopts the positions of others. What was very instructive was that she had to rehearse the attack against Biden for weeks. She has never advocated any policies to improve the situation in poor schools, including Black schools. She would be a terrible president. Besides which she could never beat Trump. And we need someone to beat Trump.
wh
10
for-profit insurance = usury
6
@me. Yes, it is usury, plain and simple. And so is (what the IRS aptly calls) “unearned income” from stocks and bonds held by the people who say that a supplement to low and middle-income folks who are so ill-paid that they are $400 away from financial disaster is somehow an unfair gift.
To illustrate: How many know that wages from work are counted against your Social Security benefit before you get to “full retirement age,” but “unearned income” from investments is not? Is that not an unfair gift to those wealthy enough to have investments?
2
harris is in other ways not suited for higher office, unless she runs against somebody like trump or pence
she just hasn't bothered to think things out.
10
Talking out of both sides of her mouth. I guess in some ways I can understand her wanting to hedge, and perhaps it's smart for the general election. Personally I think kicking everyone off their employer plan is political poison. But if that's what Harris also thinks, I wish she'd have the courage to say so.
6
@Tim She doesn't have the courage. In many respects she is like Hillary - never take a position until you are absolutely sure that people agree with it. She is not a leader.
8
The Times and the MSM create their own deliberate confusion regarding 'health insurance'. The question to ask is about Providers not Insurance. People do not care much about insurance as they care about Providers, i.e., can I keep the same Doctor under a new plan. They don't ask, 'can I keep the same insurance under the new plan'. Are there people who 'love their insurance companies'? And are they in the majority or a great majority? And why do they love their inruance company? Don't they love because said insurance lets them see the Providers they want to see? Why would a Government run plan not let them do that? As long as any new plan mandates that no Provider can turn away someone covered under a Government plan then what is the difference? This is how it works in Europe and Canada and England, no?
4
Most of the time listening to the desires of the electorate is a good idea. Unfortunately the caprices of the electorate don't take into account the actual workings of reality. They want to have it both ways but it can't possibly work that way. The reality of how a hybrid medical insurance would be implemented leaves open a potential flood of unintended consequences that make a mixed system like we have now so hard to navigate.
I know. I am retired with two dependent children. They get medicaid. I get medicare but my wife who is not yet eligible for medicare, is right on the cusp of the means test for medicaid. Our mailbox is a flood of requests for documentation and constantly changing acceptance or rejection of coverage.
I would propose that we implement a major medical insurance program that guarantees that if someone is inflicted with a financially crushing diagnosis of disease, they will not have to become destitute to pay their medical bills. The system would guarantee a maximum out of pocket liability. The coverage would cost nothing and take effect when the deductible is met. Beyond that the system could be completely private or public or both. The point is that no one in the US would be at risk of being financially destroyed by illness. That should be first and foremost the goal of a medical insurance program.
4
I was born and raised in Germany, enjoying what is similar to a Medicare for All system with options for supplemental insurance. Without going into to many details and what the differences are, I can state, and so will the entire population of Germany, that this system is an awesome approach by providing peace of mind from birth to death. You have to be insured show prove of insurance when you join a work place, (Medicare = AOK). Your monthly cost is determined by your status and income, which also covers students, unemployed people, and self-employed people. The reason why this still works is the simple fact that, despite various levels of cost, EVERY person is enrolled.
Private insurance or supplemental insurance has it place to cover extras and is up to the individual to decide of they want/need it.
As far as I know, Kamal Harris is in support of this approach and therefore earns my support.
8
@K.G. Unfortunately America is not Germany and the mind set of many if not most our Doctors is quite different, actually many foreign Doctors move to America for a much bigger paycheck, sad but true, this is no longer our parents America when the good Doctor Jones made house calls for a piece of pie: which brings me to the point ( and I think Bernie’s) as long as private insurance is available other than for a supplemental policy for extras as you describe we would face the same problem as we do now with Medicare; after The ACA was passed and the reimbursement rates were lowered for physicians to pay for coverage of those with existing conditions many Doctors wouldn’t accept Medicare patients at all even with a supplement: I personally experienced that in Florida and in Oregon: of course in rural Oregon there aren’t enough physicians available anyway so you see Nurse practitioners or go to drop in clinics. It’s too bad politicians especially Democrats are so unwilling to see what a problem we have in this country and why if they keep up the rhetoric( not to mention multi billion $ “:crisis funds”, to care for children of illegal immigrants they will surely lose the next election: we have a real crisis in this country and until everyone admits it and those that can start paying a lot more taxes( not just the super rich but those making above average income we have to stop the give aways no matter how deserved: unless of course we dropped our defense budget, yeah right.
1
@K.G.
Thanks! Me, too. I hate our US system. It penalizes people who don't work for big corporations (small business owners and individuals). It also penalizes small businesses that have to pay for their employees' health plans-ripoff! When the CEO of a "nonprofit" Blue Cross company makes over 20 million per year plus perks and I as an individual would have to pay $6400 per year plus deductible $7400 if I gave a serious problem, the system stinks!
3
"Medicare-for-All" would work only if structured like the current 65+ Medicare: basic free inpatient hospital care (Part A), outpatient care (Part B) for which sliding-scale premiums are charged based on income, prescription drugs (Part D) which are administered by private insurers charging premiums, and optional private supplements that cover the deductibles & co-pays that Part B does not (premiums based on whether managed-care or open plan), with a Part C "Advantage" that combines Part D and the Part B supplement but usually with the restrictions of closed-panel managed-care plans. In other words, quite similar to the UK's NHS, Germany's or Canada's plan (except you're on your own for meds in Canada). Those who can't afford any premiums for basic Part B would go into Medicaid, period--which must be fully-funded.
Sounds complicated? Well, it was to us seniors turning 65 but we've gotten the hang of it. With enough publicity and education about it, the rest of America would "get" it too.
(And those who want & can afford "concierge" care can always pay physicians who would be paid at prevailing rates only by the patient or an intermediary).
1
What is Medicare For All - Is it Part A for all or the whole shebang with parts C, D, and E?
Does Bernie or others even know what they are talking about?
4
I think it is fair to ask all Democrats how they intend to pay for Medicare for All, a public option, or whatever stance they take. I think Bernie Sanders was cowardly in not answering that direct question at the debate (but his web site explains the cost will be high). Kamala is not clear and needs to get a grip on this issue. I prefer those more moderate Democrats who propose allowing working people to keep their private insurance as negotiated (and, I would add, meeting a basic standard). I have worked in five different hospitals (two business offices), and private insurance payments help hospitals stay afloat. Medicare pays a lower rate, and Medi-caid often doesn't even cover the cost of treating the patient. The patient without any insurance often creates huge bills that they cannot pay, putting a strain on the whole system.
2
@Kris Abrahamson
I don't think it's cowardly of Sanders at all. He was honest and said that people's taxes are going to go up. To me, that says he wants to mirror what Canada has, where each province has a healthcare tax.
Each taxpayer above the minimum no-tax threshold is expected to pay a health tax. The max contribution, as far as I know, is $800 for the uppermost income bracket.
This covers hospital treatment and basic hospital stays. Insurance (for those who can afford it) covers medication, vision care and dental care.
The real problem of Bernie's plan is not who is going to pay for it. It's mathematically obvious that it's cheaper to give people healthcare directly than to involve a middleman insurance company.
The real battle is not money, but giving up what most doctors and hospitals want - elimination of most liability lawsuits and a cap on settlements.
That is what Canadians (and every country with public healthcare) have given up to have their affordable healthcare system.
I don't see Americans giving up their right to sue or capping settlements. That is why America would sooner give up its guns than give up their right to sue for anything and everything.
2
@Kris Abrahamson
Do you think that “employer provided medical insurance” comes with no cost? Nonsense, the cost is ma$$ive. My wife, as president of a professional corporation, sees what Emblem charges her employees for coverage. Basic insurance for a family exceeds $25K per year.
So we all say that employers should just go on forever footing that bill?
The overhead in Medicare is far lower than in for profit insurers...well, duh, PROFIT!
There is a yuge windfall for businesses to be had by their being able to stop paying those premiums.
The hard part is dividing that windfall, enough for employers to embrace the concept, but passing enough of that windfall to employees to cover most, if not all, of the Medicare premiums.
1
@Kris Abrahamson
Why should the patient without coverage have to pay the highest rate? Charge them no more than 1.5 times Medicare rates. No one can pay price gouged rates.
WHY is this an either/or question?
Medicare as currently in force has Supplements. It ONLY pays 80% of your costs, which can be considerable. If you HAVE Medicare, then you usually buy a Medicare Supplement, which MEANS that private insurance WILL exist.
It makes FAR more sense for these plans to exist on a national level rather than a state level, so that they can be uniform, and well regulated rather than patchwork.
It is IDIOTIC to assume that Medicare for All means that insurance companies will go away. Medicare for SOME doesn't even mean that private insurance is a non-thing. Some people get their Medicare from a private company!
Seriously. This is a question?
---
Which completely ignores that Kamala Harris came into the debates polling ONLY 9% and I disliked her before the debates and I dislike her NOW.
EVEN MORE.
Maybe she took away AA support from Joe Biden. Maybe she didn't. We'll see what the polls do.
1
If everyone has Medicare, there is no need to do anything to private insurance... like "abolish" it. Many if not most people (like me) will have private coverage as supplemental coverage. (Medicare does not cover everything.)
Taking a laissez faire approach to private insurance would be in order. Much of it is over-priced and profit driven and probably will atrophy.
If the private field had taken better care of its clients, it would not be in danger of becoming semi-obsolete in its current form. The same might be said of the corporate medicine behemoth.
4
I’m already tired of Kamala. A bit too careful to land on the right (or should I say left) side of the issue du jour.
Kamala, go home and work on the the fact that California is the most highly segregated state in the country for Hispanics instead of whining because you were voluntarily bused nearly 50 years ago. Talk about living in the past!
5
..... has a history of making conflicting comments ..
Polite way to say she lies
7
Kamala spent too much time prepping the “that little girl...” spontaneous line, tweet at 10:11 p.m., t-shirt sales... than listening.
The start of this question was clear. She flip-flopped and is a liar.
FYI - her mother VOLUNTARILY had Kamala bused to a BETTER school. She was not forced by Biden or any racist in Washington under a quota system.
Berkeley has -1- public high school; had her mother not moved her to Canada at age 12, she would have attended a GREAT, 100 percent integrated high school.
She accomplished her goal: destroy Biden. But she went 30-40 years info’s Biden’s past. Now let’s go 30-40 in Kamala’s. (Pandora’s Box is now open.) Accepting 2 political appointments from someone you’re dating....
06:40 Pacific Sunday
10
A major stumbling block is the fact that when asked if their taxes would go up the politicians say yes but usually don't add that you would no longer be paying insurance premiums- which are probably higher than the taxes would be.
3
@Eleanor Not true especially if one is single or a couple with no dependent children. Their costs will skyrocket.
1
Senator Harris' lack of clarity on her medicare for all position, or in plainer words, flip-flopping, perhaps to match her audience, encapsulates why my enthusiasm for her plummeted after her initial inspirational announcement speech.
I grew tired of her over rehearsed answers and zingers, and mean, bordering on ruthless, style which I dislike in any gender or race.
Given her numerous fumbles and back walking, I'm wary of how she'd do in the general elections, especially when she's challenged on her own dubious history with criminal justice.
I plan to remain open-minded, but so far I'm unimpressed.
11
"It is hard to reconcile those positions."
We need to think hard about what we want in the WH in 2010.
1
Absolutism is isolating because the absolutist will not negotiate or compromise. That is true in politics as well as religion. Hence the absolutist stance of some Democratic aspirants to the presidential nomination is a real problem.
This nation is all but evenly divided over political issues. Yes, there is room for negotiation and compromise but only if parties on both sides of the divide are willing. As long as absolutist positions are held, nothing is going to happen because one side will block the other.
Humans and this nation are not perfect and our assessment of how well solutions to our common problems are subjective at best. Frankly, we love options, we like to have at least the appearance of choice. Absolutists take away choice, for them it's: My Way Or No Way!
Rather than tell Americans what the aspirants want to accomplish, they should ask: What do you want; How would you solve these problems; What do you want the future to look like;...
Personally, I want solutions that aren't political footballs to be kicked around from Administration to Administration.
4
She's flip-flopping like a fish out of water. Even when she "clarified" as I was watching her on Morning Joe the next day she finished at the last second saying she would allow private insurance as a supplement. Meaning everyone would be required to be in the government plan. flip, flop, flip, flop, flip, flop...
2
I read: "A single-payer health plan requires people with other forms of comprehensive health insurance to switch."
I do not read anywhere that this is not necessarily so. In other words the discussion about Universal Health Care (UHC) is presented in either-or language that should be abandoned.
Here from försäkring.se (Insurance in Sweden) where a pdf is available in English to tell my fellow Americans the following facts.
In 2018 685,000 of the approximately 10,000,000 people in Sweden had some form of private insurance even though they are covered by Swedish UHC. I read that the majority get this extra coverage from their employers.
It happens that I still have some private insurance in the US, Aetna Complementary, and on occasion I have used it in Sweden.
So to all candidates: You must learn more about UHC in advanced countries and then see if this may help you to formulate a nuanced UHC proposal.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Citizen US SE
5
Thanks for repeating Holt’s quotation. I thought I heard it right. I didn’t misunderstand it and neither did Ms Harris. The closest antecedent to “their” is “who here.” So Harris Is right: “their” refers to her and the others on stage. The previous sentence is in the nature of a non-restricting, non-defining clause—additional info, background info, but not essential to the question. One should not have to look there for an antecedent. Granted, the prior sentence creates pronoun-reference confusion at “their.” But “people” doesn’t trump “who here,” no pun intended. Ultimately, it’s the writer of the question who messed up.
3
@Anonymous You are right. Using correct grammar the problem would have been avoided. "Their" is plural. If a person, an individual, is the reference the correct form is "his" if male or "her" if female. If the question refers to the personal preferences of all or a group, "his or her" is the correct form.
1
This is the least of her problems. She all but put three nails in her nomination and/or election coffin by jumping on Biden for not supporting forced busing yrs ago and attacking a senior white man hinting the era of the white man is over.
Most Americans are sick of identity politics whether it is the bigot Trump on the right or the social engineering, extreme Neo feminists on the left like Harris.
Harris/Hillary type supporters, learn from history or forever be condemned to repeat its worst mistakes, in this case, re electing the ego maniac demagogue Trump
3
Most Americans and a substantial majority of Democrats favor Medicare for All and yet the author claims, without presenting a shred of actual evidence, that supporting Medicare for All is a politically risky position. Absolute contradictory nonsense.
2
Medicare for all is the dumbest position liberals are taking. We already know it's not achievable legislatively and only scares off voters afraid of excessive government involvement in their lives. The public option may not be achievable either, but ought to satisfy liberals looking for improvement in the system while still preserving choice. Advocating for this is the smart position if we want to win.
1
Harris is my Senator. I do believe have she understands quite well what the question was considering it was worded the same way the night before. And if she could show some courage and not backtrack once again (yielding to pressure of her strategists), we'd respect her all the more. She knows that an improved Medicare for All plan being proposed in the House & Senate would relegate the need for supplemental insurance to a minor role in our system. An like every other country with some form of Single Payer, would not be in the business of making a profit by denying care. This is what sets us apart from the civilized world. Any candidate wanting to maintain the private system in it's current form is a coward.
2
The Harris ambivalence on health care can easily be rectified by a fat campaign contribution. Any idea where that would come from?
1
I have been going to the same doctor and had the same job for over 10 years. This year our insurance company dumped our doctors regularly used lab, never gave any of us a heads up including the doc. I went in for my pre-wellness like every year before and ended up with over 700.00 in bills denied from my insurance. Not just labs but they refused to pay other costs directly to the doctor that were always covered in the past. They raised our out of pocket to 7000.00. For me, who only goes to the doctor for a yearly check this is crazy, I can not even imagine what the deductible is for someone only carrying catastrophic insurance. Then this Friday I was listening to NPR and during a news section they said our insurance company is cutting ties with Renowned medical which is the predominant medical provider in the Reno area. My husbands out of pocket for his blood pressure meds increased this year also. The insurance companies are pricing themselves out of existence, and I have to say good riddance. We all want to keep our employer provided insurance until it doesn't work for us anymore. And based on comments I read everywhere, pretty much everyone seems to have a story of private insurance failing them when they need it most.
3
Saying after the fact that you didn't understand the question is a classic political dodge. Senator Harris being a politician, of course, there's nothing wrong with her using it occasionally, but if she keeps it up, it will start to wear on the electorate. If I were an adviser to any of these candidates, I would tell them to just emphasize your general principles on this subject, and many others. Giving specific details on a plan that will have to get through Congress will just make any politician a dissembler in the end.
2
It's all about the commissions paid to Insurance people. What would rather have commissions on thousands of premium's at $24,000 per year or thousands of commissions at $2,400 a year like they would get with a Medicare for all plan.
A lot of Legislatures in Wisconsin and in the federal government are insurance agents or own insurance agencies.
2
@gfrank What? Please provide links to the specifics you present here. I suggest you not bother because they don't exist. But feel free to try.
1
Democratic candidates must not allow insurance companies to portray the adoption of universal healthcare as an abolition of private, insurance company funded healthcare. I have lived in four European countries - England, France, Italy (where I reside now), and Spain. All have universal healthcare. They also have parallel private healthcare available, which is often funded by insurance policies.
You are automatically covered by the public policy, but you can also add to this and pay for a private policy if you wish. Often you can get faster (but not better) service privately, but not in instances where an intervention is critical, only for elective procedures.
Obviously, insurance companies dread the availability of single payer, taxpayer financed healthcare. They know that we who have it are satisfied with it, and wouldn't give it up for a costly alternative with dubious benefits.
Employer financed healthcare through insurance companies (which are really employee financed) would also see the attractiveness of this "benefit" diminish if there were an alternative.
The handwriting is on the wall: insurance compnies will eventually lose out to the reality that their involvement does little more than increase the costs of healthcare, while denying a majority of the healthcare they deserve.
18
@James K Griffin Bernie Sanders et al are the ones portraying the adoption of universal healthcare as an abolition of private insurance companies. It is NOT the insurance companies doing that. A simple on-line search will show you that.
1
James,
Bernie Sanders’ bill EXPLICITLY calls for a ban on any marketplace healthcare plan that duplicates its coverage. That effectively eliminates private insurance. You’re simply wrong.
1
As an American living in Australia, I can understand Senator Harris’ ambivalence on the subject. As mentioned in the article, Medicare for all shouldn’t mean no private insurance even if it means no private insurance as the primary insurer. We can use private insurance to improve the service element of health- better beds, shorter waits, alternative treatments, massages, etc. The point where health care goes from care to service should be a fair debate- even within a “Medicare for all” framework. Any less nuance only works as part of a stump speech and not part of real policy making.
4
@Josh K
If only we had supplemental insurance that wasn't based on a profit, unregulated model that drives up costs for everyone in the US. An essential benefits plan like the improved Medicare4All bills being proposed in the House & Senate have plenty of detail including the limited role that a private, supplemental plan would play if we actually had a comprehensive one that covered everyone and had much lower administrative costs. Our private insurance system as it currently operates, unlike Australia or other Single Payer type systems needs to be drastically reformed.
1
@Josh K
If private insurance was anything like the regulated version in every other country with some form of single payer as the essential care provider that you say Australia has then you might have a point. But in the US, they are not designed to supplement anything and they live by the motto "delay, deny & hope you die." They exist to make a profit, keep healthcare costs @18% of GDP and buy our politicians. Harris knows this from personal experience and must find the courage to do the right thing - support an improved and expanded Medicare4All. We have 2 bills one in the House the other in the Senate. They are are not mottos, they are detailed and deserve to be considered by the candidates.
3
Given that Senator Harris had to walk back the answer to a virtually identical question at a recent CNN Town Hall, it is concerning that she has again had to walk back the answer given at a DNC Debate.
While the objective should be universal coverage, asking people who are content with their current employuer provided coverage to give up that coverage is a losing position among the majority of voters.
14
Most people, including journalists who ask the questions and the politicians who answer them, do not know the details of US healthcare. It is no wonder that the questions are imprecise and a candidate with a legal background can split hairs and apparently be comfortable on both sides of an issue. For example, Medicare Advantage plans currently contract with private insurance carriers and will continue to do so in the future. So why are we talking in apocalyptic terms of "getting rid of insurance plans" that will alarm and confuse the general audience? If, instead, you said that the premiums will be set by the Government and prudently managed as CMS does today - there will be less drama, confusion and fear - and, unfortunately, more agreement. Not so good for "ratings", I suppose.
5
Even if the question was worded imperfectly, given the context of a debate that is supposed to be about policy in the current century, the meaning should have been clear to every participant. No one cares about their personal health plan.
Surveys probably do not ask if people have a deep understanding of what big changes to huge and complex systems with many stakeholders might lead to. This is why we elect people to make these decisions and let them spend money to hire experts, sponsor research and hear from interested parties to inform those decisions.
The ACA was an imperfect improvement, and even it almost got repealed. If the Democrats implement a massive change like single payer and it goes poorly, the financial and political costs of flip-flopping systems will last for at least a decade when there are other pressing issues like climate change, corruption and immigration.
A small win with little downside risk is often far better than an all-in bet that is probably profitable but might leave you "on the rail" (out of the game). Some humility may be warranted even if there's a plan for that.
2
I've got to say, journalists are making way too much of this. When I heard the question, I also thought it asked whether the candidates would be willing to give up their OWN private insurance.
The question was poorly worded, leading to possible misinterpretation. Let's just leave it at that.
7
When I turned 65 I had to join Medicare. The letter they sent me was chilling, actually, telling me I was losing my health coverage and needing to change to Medicare. It was way more terrifying than it needed to be. But I called and was set straight and now have Medicare and also a supplemental coverage plan from a group plan. Such plans will be offered by Medicare For All, but that initial cold letter needs to be warmed up and the byzantine process cleaned up, but, seriously, we need Medicare For All- the present system is beyond broken.
9
@skepticus
I'm three years from blessed Medicare myself.
My understanding is that supplemental plans, like the one you have, are needed, at least for people with assets to lose who don't want unpaid medical bills to wipe out their savings.
My preliminary research seems to indicate that regulation of the supplemental Medicare plans is national and uniform, and, as long as you pick up a plan at the start of your Medicare at 65, you don't have a problem if you move to a state or region that your old supplemental plan doesn't cover.
(You just get another plan, of the same gap-covering levedl, that is not-pre-existing-condition screened, covering your new area.)
This state-independent smoothness of coverage is a bit different from the ACA, where individual states do have a complex role and sometimes do bungle. (For me here in MA, this bungling has been around handling expanded Medicaid / on exchange plan crossovers without giving me coverage gaps.)
Do please, you or anyone else, correct me if I am wrong on the smooth, gap-free national rules for Medicare supplemental if you move between states.
1
@Norm Spier
There are two types of Medicare plans. One , Medicare Advantage allows a private insurance company to bill CMS (Center fro Medicare Services) roughly $800 a month, but you are covered for prescription drugs. Your co-pays and deductibles for Medicare services are eliminated or at least reduced. However you may not be covered out of State , or covered for travel abroad. Your in-network plan may be limited too.
The type of Medicare supplement plan I have is called a Medigap Plan. It is supplemental to Regular Medicare, ($135 a month) which is honored at hospitals anywhere in the US. My Medigap plan (Type F) covers me outside the country (for 60 days) , and anywhere in the US. It covers all co-pays and deductibles not covered by Regular Medicare. This BCBS Medigap Plan costs me $172.55 a month at the present time. It does not cover medications. For that I have a Medicare Part D plan.
6
@skepticus - Yes when I turned 65 I was put on Medicare but by that time I was living in Sweden where I was also on Swedish Universal Health Care.
Medicare does not appy for any care given outside the USA, and it has happened that I had to have medical care in the USA and did so under Medicare. Since I also had paid for Aetna Complementary care I noted that US doctors seemed to be more willing to take me on knowing I had the Aetna insurance. I also note that even with all that, some care in the USA that would have been so low cost here did cost me in the US. And the care here does not require filling in any forms.
Universal Health Care on the Swedish model, which does allow people to also have private insurance, even employer provided (685,000 in 2018) is what America needs. To provide it is not at all radical but simply essential.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Citizen US SE
5
I also understood the questioner (maybe Chuck Todd) to ask whether any of the *individual candidates* would give up their private health insurance policies in favor of government insurance.
I'm a real pedant for correct verbal expression and this is what I heard. Trust me...I'm a doctor.
7
@mignon. Ah pronouns! He used the pronoun "their" right after mentioning the populace as a whole but then asked the debaters a direct question. Thus the confusion about whom this "their" referred to.
Harris says she thought it was meant personally. I heard it as referring to the populace as a whole. This reminded me of how some individuals who have a problem with their own gender label want to be called "they".
Why did I get reminded of this? Because there have been so many articles, in what I consider the obsessed NY Times, on this subject. I have been conditioned no matter what the subject is now that is being talked about.
@mignon That's not how I interpreted the question at the time. And, as a former lawyer, I feel I have pretty keen ear for these things. (For example, the Supreme Court has debated the referent of "their" in the Fourth Amendment.) I give Harris--who I generally do not support among the Democratic candidates--the benefit of the doubt on this.
1
I think, if we were starting a nation from scratch, we should opt for a single payer system funded through tax dollars (although I might be willing to see some small co-pays involved).
But we aren't, and I think an immediate shift to such a single-payer system is not politically viable. So my compromise position is public option/"Medicare for all who want it"--although such coverage would have to be very comprehensive, more so than Medicare is now, and, again, with very closely regulated costs, including deductibles and co-pays. It should be set up so that with sufficient subscribers, it would beat all or most private insurance prices, which is should be able to given that it would involve far less administrative cost and should be able to draw upon a wide swath of younger, healthier participants.
The key here is that eliminating private insurance, especially for those covered by employers, would torpedo any such plan, and should not be done. Offering this public option will allow a gradual change from insurance tied to employment status to insurance not so tied, which is where it should be. There would still be a reduced role for private insurance down the line, but the change would be gradual and less disruptive--I have no doubts many employees would shift to a public option over time, and certainly non-employees can opt in immediately.
There may well be some premium (as now). And taxes will need raising. But people will see overall savings.
1
Here's a story about disruption caused by company provided health insurance:
My wife's employer was bought by another company in the last few weeks. We have to switch to their insurance on 7/1. I had only recently met the $1000 deductible on current plan getting MRIs on my shoulders. I need surgery on at least the right shoulder and maybe both.
On 7/1 we start over with a $1500/person deductible with new insurance. Not only that, we aren't sure if my surgeon or PCP are preferred providers with this insurance. Don't have enough info yet to determine and the company is one neither of these doctors have heard of, so they may not be in network.
Where does that leave me? I may have to endure the pain & further put my life on hold until Medicare eligibility kicks in in October.
And don't get me started about what happens when you leave a company without going immediately to a new job. COBRA is outrageously expensive. I work contract so have depended on my wife's insurance for a long time. She has in the past taken off a year to go to school to become a nurse, time to care for her ailing father, and various other times when we've had to use COBRA.
So yeah, the current system isn't all that great.
End rant.
24
@Mike
I see you are looking forward to Medicare in a few months, just like I am. Three years.
I certainly want Medicare For All, but as the weaknesses of the current system exhibit themselves to me, there's at least some light at the end of the tunnel in 3 years with Medicare for Me.
--
Unfortunately, on who is in-network on your new plan, you may hit some issues of incomplete and inaccurate information in the insurer databases.
I had a forced switch just recently, as you did, in my case to MA expanded Medicaid, with 9 possible insurer subplans.
There was so much trouble determining whether providers were in each of the 9 networks, that the insurers told me I had to call each provider's business office during business hours, and get all possible the 10-digit National Provider Indexes (NPIs) that could be submitted with each bill from the provider, and run those numbers through each insurers database over the phone.
(Even this relatively accurate process failed once, and a provider disagreed with an insurer. The insurer insisted only two provider locations of four with the NPI were covered, excluding the one I was considering. The insurer and provider's billing office had to work it out, consulting with various other parties, over several days.)
This was 50 hours of work in my case. It could have been 200 hours, if I wasn't lucky. (Fortunately, I am retired, and had the 50 to 200 hours during business hours to spare.)
Good luck. I envy you. Just until October!
3
"It is hard to reconcile those positions." Well, please explain why? It seems straightforward to me. Ms. Harris is willing to give up her private insurance for a public option, but is willing to let others keep private insurance if they so please.
Lester Holt asked "who would abolish their private health insurance in favor of a government run plan". When I first heard that, I interpreted the question to ask if the candidates would trade their private health insurance for a public plan. The problem is with the wording of the question. The candidates should have asked for clarification, since it's clear in hindsight that Mr. Holt misspoke.
11
@gbb As I noted in another comment, I think his question was clear. If he meant to ask about general policy, he should not have used "your".
@gbb Certainly a possibility except Ms. Harris has flip-flopped a few times already on this issue. So in one instance she misunderstood the question -- what about the others?
1
If getting to single payer is too much, at least, from the ACA, remove the distinction between Medicaid, and on-exchange plans.
Currently, in states that have expanded Medicaid, the ACA has two halves: people to 138% of the Fed. Pov. Level (FPL) get Medicaid, while people at 138% of FPL and above get an on-exchange plan.
Here in MA (where we use our own exchange), I have experienced 2 coverage disruptions when I have passed from one half of the ACA to the other. Caused by our exchange, in coordination with our Medicaid agency, with their inability to manage the relatively complex task of transitioning people smoothly.
This happened a few years ago, where the MA agencies told me they were stopping my expanded Medicaid effectively immediately, and starting my new on-exchange plan in 2 months time. 3 agents in a row told me this, and said it was just how they did it. (I had to publicize the issue on the internet to get it resolved.)
Then, just a few weeks ago, with no change in my income, midyear, a MA agency decided to rerun expanded Medicaid eligibility using newer, 2% higher FPL cutpoints. This led to me getting 6 days notice that my on-exchange plan was being cancelled. (If I were in the hospital at the time, this could have bankrupted me.) I assume the same thing happened to about 1500 other people.
Many state agencies, like in MA, are not adept enough to handle the Medicaid/ exchange plan transition smoothly.
Therefore, the two halves should be merged into one.
5
Where Ms. Harris, and the Democratic party, should go is a plan which provides the following:
1) As the default position you are covered by Medicare (or its new incarnation). It will be funded by a dedicated tax on all income (not just wages). And this will replace Medicaid, relieving states of one of their greatest expenses.
2) You may purchase private insurance or be insured under an employer/union plan. You will receive a tax credit for a portion of the premiums paid by you or your employer.
3) If an employer providing health insurance wants to stop providing it, the employer must pay an exit fee (probably several years of the premiums it would have paid) to support the government program.
4) Even with the public plan, people would have the option to purchase supplemental insurance. These would cover co-pays or uncovered expenses, such as doctors who do not accept the Medicare rate.
5) There would be a residual program for the very poor to cover their co-pays.
3
@John Graybeard
I see your rule (3), which is there to keep companies that now provide health insurance from stopping providing it.
This tries to get at the finance problem, where we now have employers paying for about half of health care, and there is a financial jolt if we lose that.
Still, I can see a potential flaw: certain companies that provide health insurance can just close, then reopen as new companies (perhaps done via sale of IP), dropping the health insurance payments.
Even the exit fee may erode the finances gradually if corporations don't dissolve and reincorporate.
Maybe a payroll tax?
I wonder how Canada does it.
But, however we do it, the issue is the shift in finance sources. Corporations paying for employee insurance now may get a windfall; some lower-end corporations not picking up costs now (smaller than ACA-mandate size of 50) may experience a shift in whether it pays to be in business. There will be some disruption. A new equilibrium will be established.
Please correct me if I have missed something on you 5-point plan.
1
You asked how Canada does it and I think the question doesn’t apply. We have universal healthcare, which covers us in Canada for virtually all medical treatments. If you are travelling outside Canada (especially the States), it is always best (read imperative) to buying supplemental (travel) insurance. This insurance is usually provided through one’s company’s group insurance plan. Company plans usually provide dental, vision care and prescription drug coverages as well as some medical coverage but the later is very limited because, as I already mentioned, it is virtually all covered by the government. If you are not working for a company that has a group plan, you are paying for your own dental and vision care costs. For prescription drugs, it depends on the province; some provinces will cover you while other will not. There seems to be political motivation, however, to create a national coverage plan. In the end, the question should be what is the most efficient way to provide healthcare to citizens. Nothing is free; Canadians pay for their healthcare through taxes but are covered from birth to death with no financial catastrophe worries.
I've no idea why Biden, and an unknown number of other Dem candidates, want to abolish private health insurance.
Every other developed country has universal healthcare. Every one of them also has private health insurance.
5
@Jethro
Iceland, which I presume you'd consider a developed country, though I'd call it highly developed, does not have a private health insurance, only universal.
That doesn't mean I support eliminating private insurance options in the U.S. -- when I lived in Malta, I was happy (and relieved) to have the private insurance.
Incidentally, I find comparing the U.S. with Iceland or other countries the size of a smallish U.S city, a dubious comparison.
8
Don't be distressed. Biden-- like most candidates on the stage-- does NOT want to abolish private health insurance. As Mayor Pete put it, he (like Biden) supports Medicare for all who want it, I.e., add on the option of choosing the Govt plan, but do not require it and do not take away the option of private insurance.
5
@S Halpern
But what if waffler Harris or won't-admit-it socialist Warren are elected, not to mention straight-out socialist Sanders?
1
I'm distressed by your conflation of Medicare for All with single payer.
Medicare is an elaborate, and excellent, program of government-supported medical care that is, among other things, a complex bureaucracy.
It was designed, in addition to providing care, to build an immense system for keeping people out who don't qualify and, because unsupported biases of many legislators, to prevent "abusing" the service.
This creates unnecessary limitations on, barriers to service that would vanish if everyone everywhere qualified, no questions asked.
Due to Rube Goldberg funding formulas there is a complex, penurious, unwieldy schedule of services and payments that do not apply to a single payer plan.
Oddly, the biggest abusers of the system, who benefit the most (and it'ss a lot) from scamming the system are physicians, administrators, corporations, many the very people who, in their political lives, decry real single payer as too expensive, too socialist. Of course they oppose such a plan with everything they have.
If there is to be a debate, terms must be plain and accurately defined.
You're not helping.
Practically, if any system has a chance at success it will be a single payer system: easy to understand, more efficient and less costly to implement, more likely to provide adequate income for hospitals and providers.
Medicare for All is a dangerous distraction. Any combined or commercial insurance plan is an invitation to corruption, a death sentence for the idea.
2
(First, for those interested in discounting other human beings, I invite you to discount me as my identities are in large part mirror images of Senator Harris'. You do so with my encouragement as I rather embrace being a nowhere man at this life stage.)
As a human I make mistakes. I acknowledge them, particularly when they are brought to my public attention and are on matters of some significance, as Healthcare is in the election. Mostly I do not make the exact same mistake again but if I do and if the mistake is again brought to me attention I do not think the third occasion of the mistake is any longer a mistake. There is some unacknowledged meaning at that point. Thus, even with charity and humanity, I do not think Senator Harris' problem with answering the Mandatory Single Payor questions is a mistake. Directly said, she is signalling something and her lack of clarity, given an intelligence, education, and public forum speaking experience which exceeds my own, is of meaning. Denial of that underlying meaning is just that, Denial.
4
@Privelege Checked; She showed no lack of clarity! She answered the question as it was asked, correctly interpreting that it applied to her personally and her (and other candidates) alone.
1
@mignon Why has Senator Harris not publicly with specific clarity stated her position on Mandatory Single Payor for All since the Thursday night question ?
You and others keep focusing on the single debate moment and make no reference to the Times questionnaire or her earlier statement and (?) reversal which are very relevant context.
1
Glad for this article. The question was poorly formed, but I only saw it as she said she did (each candidates’ preference for themselves) when I replayed it yo see how she could’ve mistaken it.
Point being, I heard it as a policy question on debate nights 1 & 2. And she should have too. I mean, in that context are candidates going to be asked about THE major issue in a way that is NOT about their national policy? Of course not!
I think she’s more ambitious than ready. She jumped from senate seat to presidential run after just 2 yrs in any legislative body. A turn off to me. Wasn’t a fan of Obama doing it either, but at least he served in IL legislature too.
21
I've just been exposed to a lot of wasted time, and some risk to my heath, resulting from the complexity of our system, with so many separate insurance policies for everyone to deal with.
Maybe its time for single payer.
I just had my health insurance plan switched on me, owing to passing between one half of the ACA, on-exchange plans that people over 138% of Fed. Pov. Level (FPL) get, to expanded Medicaid, that those up to 138% FPL get.
(The problem was worse than it needed to be, owing to a bungling by the MA agencies handling the ACA, so that I had only 6 days notice of a switch in plans, which switch I otherwise could not predict. I also happened to be sick at the time, with a bacterial infection that ultimately needed to be diagnosed and treated.)
I had to put in about 50 hours of time picking an expanded Medicaid subplan from the 9 available in my area, and finding a primary care provider in that subplan.
The issue was that the insurer databases of providers had all kinds of omissions and inaccuracies.
The insurers ultimately told me that the only reliable way to find out if a provider was covered by the insurer was to phone the provider's billing office, get all possible 10 digit National Provider Identifiers (NPIs) that could be presented with a bill, and phone the insurer with that NPI.
This even failed once, and the provider had to resolve the disagreement about whether they were covered by the insurer over a few days time.
Crazy. Let's simplify.
9
On the single-payer vs. Obamacare system, let me just toss in some less-publicized aspects, which tend to favor single payer, unless a major Federal revision can happen to Medicaid, and be permitted by the courts.
There are problems, even when states expand Medicaid, that result from the division of the ACA into two halves: Medicaid and expanded Medicaid for people up to 138% of the Fed. Pov. Level (FPL), and an on-exchange plan, subsidized or not, for people above 138% FPL.
Being:
1)
If states don't do a really great job with Medicaid eligibility, synchronizing income sources and timing to the same annual current year MAGI as on-exchange plans, then it can mathematically happen that people can be INELIGIBLE for BOTH halves of Obamacare certain months.
Further, they can be thrashed back and forth between an on-exchange plan and expanded Medicaid as often as every month.
2)
As I understand the law, people over 55 receiving Obamacare as Medicaid expansion are subject to having full medical bills paid by the ACA clawed back from their estates at death. This could be millions of dollars.
That is, expanded Medicaid, if a state chooses, is not insurance, but just a loan until death.
This estate clawback of Medicaid is done now for nursing home expenses routinely. I don't see any guarantees by any state that I know of that it will not clawback expanded Medicaid. It's a real risk, and a real flaw of the ACA, unless the law is corrected.
7
For completeness, in case anyone doubts my assertion that medical Medicaid and Expanded Medicaid payments (not just nursing home Medicaid payments) can be recovered from an estate, let me tack on two sound references that are clear about this:
1) https://www.verywellhealth.com/how-the-medicaid-estate-recovery-program-works-1738836
and another:
2) https://www.elderlawanswers.com/medicaids-power-to-recoup-benefits-paid-estate-recovery-and-liens-12018
(The first reference seems to be clear in indicating that estate recovery for long-term care expenses for people 55 or older is actually MANDATORY for the states to do, but optional for general medical expenses, including expanded Medicaid.
It specifically mentions the ACA, and that the law allows recovery of all medical expenses under expanded Medicaid.)
1
The problem is of the 23 Democratic candidates maybe 3 or 4 know their own core positions. The others are in the business of trying to guess where the votes are.
She heard the question just fine.
35
"Ms. Harris later said she thought the 'their' meant her, and not the people watching at home."
Yes, that's exactly how I understood the question, i.e., "Would you, Kamala Harris, be willing to give up your private insurance?"
I don't know how that squares with her others answers. Maybe she's evolved to this new position.
This question, and a lot of others, were very imprecise and sloppily asked. She and other candidates certainly should have the opportunity to expound and explain their nuanced position.
Live TV is famous for gaffes, blunders, accidents, embarrassments, unintended consequences, and failed communications. It's a crapshoot.
So, obviously, I'm all for giving her the benefit of a doubt. (And I'm for Bernie, by the way.)
12
Exactly the same question was posed during the debate on Wednesday, so effectively Sen. Harris had 24 hours to come up with an answer. I would think she knew exactly what the question was.
25
@Piotr After the Wednesday debate, I read numerous commentaries pointing out that the question asked of the candidates was whether they'd be willing to give up THEIR OWN private insurance -- making this personal -- precisely as Kamala heard it.
8
@Mitchell
Yet within the current discussions of Medicare for all vs private insurance the question had to be clear for candidates on Thursday night. Why have none of the others tried to publicly back away from their answers?
4
@DaveD Why have none of the others tried to publicly back away from their answers?
Perhaps because they were less motivated to answer for their own misinterpretations as long as they can gloat over the perception that Kamala was cornered.
1
Dear NYT:
Sen. Harris is surprisingly shifty on this point, and her answers on The Times questionaire should be regarded as the most definitive in what has become a major flip-flopping moment.
I suspect Harris will claim a staffer filled out the Times' questionaire, or she had a migraine that prevented her from reading it accurately.
Why is The Times allowing her to slide, armed with such powerful evidence that she is, uh, lying?
36
@Jorge
IF a flip flop is the worst that comes out of her mouth then I'm with her, let's give her the benefit of the doubt. She won't be the first to misinterpret the question; she won't be the first to flip-flop on an answer. Her momentum is just beginning!
1
The Upshot claims that "A single-payer health plan requires people with other forms of comprehensive health insurance to switch. That is a politically risky position."
No, it's not. Americans hate their private for-profit insurance. For profit insurance is a nightmare. Does any American want to go back to for-profit insurance rather than go on Medicare? Of course not.
This question comes from the conservative corporate press corps. The answer for most Americans is "get rid of for-profit insurance. Now!"
39
@Sean
I surely agree with you.
Medicare starts in 3 years for me, and I can't wait.
I've just in the last month had some horrible experiences with my (ACA) health insurance, threatening my life savings, wasting about 50 hours of my time, and possibly harming my health. All due to our oh so complex system, ACA included.
There is a complexity of Obamacare in that it splits coverage into Medicaid or expanded Medicaid for people up to 138% FPL, and on-exchange plans for people 138% FPL and above.
I think many states bungle around this division. Notably, here in MA, the regulatory agencies responsible bungled things, and I had a completely unpredictable switch from an on-exchange plan to an expanded Medicaid plan with 6 days notice (5/25/19 notification that my exchange plan would end 5/31/19).
The problem is, were I in hospital X for a few weeks, in-network for my old plan, surgeon etc in-network and approved, when I got out, I would have a seen a letter in the mail informing me that that plan was no longer in effect, and all my bills were uncovered.
It also took about 50 hours of my time selecting one of the 9 expanded Medicaid subplans, and making sure I had an available provider and hospital in my area.
Insurer databases on providers had errors and omissions, so the insurers I had to call each provider and PCP billing office to get every possible 10 digit NPI number that the provider could use, and run it by the insurer. This was 50 hours.
Crazy. Let's simplify.
17
@Sean
And as well, a reason I can't wait to get to Medicare:
I've recently figured out that apparently states can legally recover all Medicaid and expanded Medicaid medical expenses for people 55 and over under the ACA from a recipient's estate. (It comes from a law during Clinton; and it could be millions of dollars .)
States routinely do this estate recovery for nursing home expenses, including my own, MA.
Commenting on a Krugman column prior on this aspect, one reader asserted no state would ever try to recover ACA medical expenses.
But I think that reader is thinking wishfully.
I certainly don't trust states not to do it.
They may do it in a financial crunch, or out of dislike for the ACA, or out of simple incompetence.
And I have not heard so far of any state promising not to do it, or with it written into its laws.
I think estate recovery for Medicaid and expanded Medicaid is a real risk. A flaw of Obamacare. Correctable, perhaps, at the Federal level, if the courts and political system will allow it.
6
@Norm Spier I also recall when Bernie Sanders went on Fox News, the interviewer Brett Baird turned around and asked for a show of hands of all people who were on private health insurance. Most of the people raised their hands. Then he asked for a show of hands of people in the audience who would be willing to give up their private insurance for a government-run insurance program. Almost everyone in the audience raised their hands. Then the audience broke out in cheers.
Even Fox News watchers understand that their for-profit insurance companies are destroying their health. It appears that the corporate media, including The Times, haven't figured out that simple fact that most Americans have.
24
With her sudden and immediate flip-flop on whether she supports the abolishment of private health insurance I'm afraid that the Age of Kamala will be coming to an end rather quickly.
18
When they asked the candidates if they would abolish their health insurance I also thought it was asking them personally about abolishing their own health insurance. The question was defective. It wasn't until the analysis after the debates that it became clear. The moderators need to be more specific in their questions. They bear that responsibility.
27
@Juan When I “choose” AT&T over Verizon, I don’t “abolish” Verizon. If I choose Medicare over Anthem, that doesn’t “abolish” Anthem. The question was clear. So is the bill that she read and cosponsored.
2
The question asking about Medicare for all is rather convoluted. The current Medicare has most people with a supplemental plan, mostly private plans and also public plans from the states.
When a moderator asks a candidate are they in favor of Medicare for All, a yes answer could include supplemental plans or just government plans.
Without a real discussion of the cost of such care and the means to pay for such a plan, the question is rather vapid.
8
Political candidates need to phrase their own statements rather than answer the questions of others.
3
Ten years ago I was paying $1500 a month - the cheapest insurance I could buy as a self-employed individual. I am extremely happy on Medicare with a supplemental plan (which is very important) & think most people would be. But given the concerns of many people who like their current situations, I'd tread very lightly on a mandated coverage for all & the ability to opt in to extras is also a necessary ingredient.
17
@RKD Just for clarification, was that $1500 a month for individual or family coverage? Seems high for individual even by todays standards.
2
@RKD It seems my previous reply got lost in the muck so I apologize if this ends up being a duplicate. When you say $1500 a month, was that for individual or family coverage? Seems high for individual even by today's standards.
2
An individual policy or a family policy? I purchase my health insurance off the marketplace as well, and I have never, ever seen a plan with a premium that comes anywhere close to that.