Kamala Harris looks and sounds like a winner. She’s smart, telegenic, and tough. Her campaign rollout was, with one exception, a great success. That exception, however, is worthy of discussion.
Harris, like virtually every other Democrat, supports Medicare for All–whatever that means. When she was asked about the role of private insurance in her plan during a CNN town hall, she went the full Bernie and said that it would have to go. Later, when faced with plenty of public opposition, she walked part of it back. Her communications director explained that she wanted a burrito (the Sanders version of MFA), but for tactical reasons, might be willing to settle for a taco (Medicare for More).
There isn’t anything obviously wrong with saying that you will keep your powder dry and your tactics flexible. I suspect most of the other candidates will ultimately handle the issue the same way. The point is that this is one of the most important questions the candidates will be addressing between now and November, and she should have been better prepared for it.
I write largely to explain that, in this case, a taco is unlikely, in the long run, to get you a burrito. The full Bernie version of MFA provides universal coverage with no co-pays through a tax-supported payment system; there is no role for private insurance in this system. Medicare for More is a voluntary system that does not get you to universal coverage, is paid for largely by individual consumers rather than taxpayers, has co-pays, and does not impact the interests of people who have private insurance; that is a completely different model. Medicare for All, in my opinion, is a political disaster waiting to happen in 2020; Medicare for More, on the other hand, is not.