Presidential hopeful Kamala Harris introduced an ambitious healthcare proposal on Monday that would gradually introduce so-called government-funded “Medicare for All” healthcare while allowing private insurers to continue operating.
Harris’ plan is an attempt to hold the middle ground amid the ongoing healthcare debate in the Democratic Party. It would enroll most people living in the United States under government-subsidized Medicare but would allow private insurers to offer plans alongside the government’s.
“Essentially, we would allow private insurance to offer a plan in the Medicare system, but they will be subject to strict requirements to ensure it lowers costs and expands services,” Harris wrote in a blog post. “If they want to play by our rules, they can be in the system. If not, they have to get out.”
Harris assumes her plan is a reasonable compromise: Her plan would overhaul the current healthcare system over the course of 10 years, as opposed to the four-year timeline introduced under the Medicare for All Act. But Harris’ plan is just as revolutionary as Sens. Bernie Sanders’ or Elizabeth Warren’s. It would sweep away our healthcare system — confusing, disorganized, and messy as it may be — and replace it with a government-run program.
Harris might think she’s being politically savvy, appeasing her voter base while appealing to moderates skeptical of socialized healthcare, but she’s not fooling anyone. Private insurers would be pushed out and removed entirely from Harris’ system. It might just take a little bit longer.
Harris will argue her plan still leaves room for private insurance companies. So, too, does the Medicare for All Act, technically. The text of the bill doesn’t actually abolish private insurance. It outlaws the “health insurance coverage that duplicates the benefits provided under this Act.” But, of course, the assumption Sanders, Warren, and the other presidential candidates who have endorsed the legislation act upon is that a single-payer system will eliminate the need for private insurers, therefore stifling their existence. Harris’ plan will be much the same. Though it isn’t single-payer, it is still a “public option on steroids,” as National Review contributor Pradheep Shanker put it.
Of course, when it comes to implementation, Harris offers few details. The plan’s cost, and the strict standards participating private insurers must meet, are conveniently neglected. But it has won the approval of several former Obama administration officials who helped lead the Obamacare charge in 2009 and 2010. One such official, Andy Slavitt, told Politico that Harris’ plan is an “effort to balance idealism and pragmatism.” He’s right. But when it comes to doing away with and replacing an entire industry that “employs at least a half a million people, covers about 250 million Americans, and generates roughly a trillion dollars in revenue,” according to the New York Times, this balance is untenable.
The Obama-era stamp of approval shouldn’t come as a surprise. Harris’ plan might be as unrealistic as it is deceptive, but it’s reminiscent of a promise former President Barack Obama once made: “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.” Americans don’t need to be reminded of how well that worked out.
