Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., who previously boasted that she supported ending private insurance, has a new political tactic. Now, she says that those who want to keep their plans are unwittingly allowing themselves to become shills for the insurance industry.
In a January appearance in a CNN town hall, Harris declared it was time to “move on” from private insurance. It was an answer that had the benefit of being true, because under the healthcare program she supports, 177 million people would be kicked off their current private insurance, and private plans would effectively be eliminated within four years. The problem is, that response does not poll well. A Kaiser survey that found 56% support for a national healthcare plan described as “Medicare for all,” saw that support drops to 37% when told such a plan would “eliminate private insurance companies,” with 58% opposed.
So, when a student on Monday followed up by asking Harris about the overwhelming majority of people who liked their private plans, Harris offered a different response.
After reiterating her support for socializing the health insurance system under the banner of “Medicare for all,” and stating that she believed healthcare was a right, Harris said, “On this issue of this whole dynamic about access to private insurance — of course private insurance, you can get supplemental insurance and all of that, but let’s not be duped by a messaging campaign that has been waged for years by the insurance companies to have you into believing that you need to defend them.”
Effectively, she’s arguing that if people like their coverage, they’re just being suckered by insurance companies. She knows better.
As for the idea of “supplemental” private coverage being legal, here’s what that means. Under the Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., plan that Harris supports, private companies would be barred from selling insurance that duplicates the benefits offered by the government plan. While that technically allows room for private insurance, given the wide range of benefits that the government plan promises to cover, it would be a very small amount room. Specifically, not only does the government plan promise to cover benefits including hospital services, doctor visits, prescription drugs, mental heath treatment, and dental and vision care, but it promises to do so without out-of-pocket expenses. That is, the plan promises to eliminate premiums, co-payments, and deductibles. So effectively, these two elements taken together would get rid of private insurance. At the minimum, everybody who likes their current private plans would lose them in the transition.
Harris then went on to misleadingly say, “You know what? Ninety-one percent of the doctors are in Medicare so the idea, the suggestion they’re trying to make to you, is really a false one — you will be able to have your doctor — 91% of them are in the Medicare system.”
What Harris leaves out is that under the plan she endorses, current Medicare would be replaced by the new government-run plan for all. Existing Medicare is broadly accepted, because in the current system, private insurance exists and generally pays doctors more than Medicare. So doctors can shift costs to those with private insurance, allowing them to accept less profitable Medicare patients. If everybody is on a single government plan, then there are going to be challenges.
If the new government plan pays rates that are similar to what private insurance currently pays, it will make any socialized health insurance program drastically more expensive. If government uses its bargaining power to drive down payment rates, fewer doctors will be willing or able to accept the government-run plan. That will cause severe access problems, in which people who have a government insurance card that technically gives them free healthcare, will in practice have difficulty finding a doctor, and even more problems finding one who will see them in a timely manner.
Harris’s responses to healthcare questions have opened her up to many avenues of attack in a potential general election, when she’s aiming to woo voters who are more skeptical of having the government take over health insurance.
