Kamala Harris Kicks Off Brutal Battle Over ‘Medicare for All’

Plus, Dems push to expand Social Security By Yuval Rosenberg and Michael Rainey Kamala Harris Kicks Off the Brutal 2020 Battle Over ‘Medicare for All’ The hazards Democrats face as they debate “Medicare for all” are on full display this week. California Sen. Kamala Harris, a leading contender for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, unleashed what [CNN]( calls “a shockwave through the national health care debate” on Monday night when she said that she favors eliminating private health insurance as part of a shift to a single-payer “Medicare for all” system. "Who of us has not had that situation, where you've got to wait for approval [for medical treatment] and the doctor says, well, I don't know if your insurance company is going to cover this?" Harris told CNN’s Jake Tapper during a town hall hosted by the news network. "Let's eliminate all of that. Let's move on." Harris has co-sponsored Sen. Bernie Sanders’ single-payer plan, so her position shouldn’t have been a shock — but “her total lack of equivocation about what that legislation actually entails caught many off guard,” says [New York’s Eric Levitz](. Her remarks reportedly were greeted by applause from the Drake University town hall audience — but they sparked some intense criticism outside the room, highlighting the risks Democrats face as they sort through the [competing Medicare for all proposals]( and get pressed for details about the policies they back. “In a single flourish, Harris drew attention to the fact that the Medicare-for-all plans backed by 16 senators — including five potential candidates for the Democratic nomination — would in effect remove private health insurance from the estimated 251 million Americans who use it, broadly disrupting the industry and the way Americans experience the medical system,” [The Washington Post’s Annie Linksey wrote](. The Criticisms Republicans [pounced](. “Her full embrace of socialized medicine would completely eliminate your private health care plan, even if you like it,” RNC spokesman Steve Guest [told Fox News](. Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz, on a media tour after announcing he’s considering an independent run for president, called the idea of eliminating private insurance “not American” in an interview with CBS. “What industry are we going to abolish next? The coffee industry?" he added. Michael Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York who’s also a potential 2020 presidential candidate, dismissed Harris’s idea as unaffordable. “I think you can have ‘Medicare for all’ for people that are uncovered,” he [said]( “but to replace the entire private system where companies provide health care for their employees would bankrupt us for a very long time.” The Harris camp later clarified that the senator has supported and would still be open to other plans that maintain a role for the private insurance industry but emphasized that she wasn’t backing off her position and still prefers a single-payer system. "Medicare-for-all is the plan that she believes will solve the problem and get all Americans covered. Period," Harris’s press secretary told CNN. "She has co-sponsored other pieces of legislation that she sees as a path to getting us there, but this is the plan she is running on." And another Harris spokesperson [fired back]( at Schultz and Bloomberg on Twitter: “Attacked by billionaires for fighting to make sure every American has health care. What a shock.” Seven Things to Know About the Dems’ ‘Medicare for All’ Fight This Could Be a Big Litmus Test for 2020 Contenders: “What's clear from the Harris dust-up is that there doesn't appear to be much room for nuance or hedging when it comes to support (or opposition) to ‘Medicare for all,’” suggests [CNN’s Chris Cillizza](. “It appears to be the first sort of litmus test of liberal purity at work in the 2020 Democratic race.” Harris Was Willing to Be Bold: Democrats sometimes tiptoe around the idea of eliminating private insurance for fear of stoking just the kind of reaction Harris got. She was willing to say it. “The left wants America to catch up with most of the developed world, where health insurance is more or less a right of citizenship and costs are still lower, and they think the best, simplest way to do it is to put everybody into one national health care plan,” Vox’s Dylan Scott says. He points out this [tweet]( by a policy adviser to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: “Yes, we're going to get rid of the entire health insurance industry. That's a feature, not a bug.” Americans Mostly Like Their Health Care: Most Americans get their health insurance through their employers, and while they may be unhappy about the high cost of health care and prescription drugs generally, polls find that most Americans are pretty satisfied with their insurance. A recent [Gallup survey]( found that 70 percent of those with private insurance called their coverage “excellent” or good, and 85 percent rated the quality of care they receive using those terms. And They Are Nervous About Eliminating Private Insurance: In response to Harris’s remarks, many have pointed to a recent Kaiser Family Foundation poll that found that 56 percent of Americans favor Medicare for all — but that approval rating plunged to 37 percent when respondents were asked about eliminating private health insurance companies. "The public favors these proposals that would broaden choice, but also want to be sure they don't lose something that they value," Tricia Neuman, director of the Kaiser foundation's Program on Medicare Policy, told CNN. So Just Wait Until They Find Out What Else Is Involved in Switching to Single Payer: “For instance,” writes the [Washington Examiner’s Philip Klein]( “the staggering taxes that would have to be levied not just on the uber rich but also on the middle class; the massive layoffs that would result from putting a major industry out of business; the access problems that result when you're giving everybody ‘free’ healthcare while putting downward pressure on payment rates to doctors, hospitals, and other medical providers.” Democrats Should Be Wary of the ‘Medicare for All Trap’: [The New York Times’ David Leonhardt]( warns, [Admiral Ackbar-style]( that the Medicare-for-all debate is a trap, and the plan Harris supports “is an unforced error” that comes with “huge political vulnerabilities.” He notes that Brendan Nyhan, a University of Michigan political scientist, [put it this way]( “Even in our current politics, this proposal splits Ds and unites Rs. That's the opposite of smart politics.” Leonhardt also offers his own suggestion for the Democrats’ best answer on the Medicare for all question: “If you want Medicare, you can have it, regardless of your age. If you’d rather keep your private plan, you can do that, too. This approach will give us universal coverage, lower costs and consumer choice. Oh, and I’m in favor of tax increases on the wealthy and corporations to help pay for it. They’re [not paying their fair share]( right now.” But Single-Payer Systems Don’t Have to Get Rid of Private Insurance: “A role for private insurers is more the rule rather than the exception in other high-income countries,” Larry Levitt told the Los Angeles Times’ [Jon Healey](. But while some opponents of single payer warn that consumers would lose out on some choice if private insurers were eliminated, others argue that private insurers don’t make the system better. Dr. David Himmelstein, who advocates for a single-payer system as the cofounder of Physicians for a National Health Program, told Healey that keeping private insurers adds to the bureaucratic costs of health care without really making consumers better off. Border Security Negotiations Begin as Trump Threat of Another Shutdown Looms The bipartisan, bicameral committee tasked with finding a budget compromise to avert another government shutdown on February 15 met for the first time Wednesday, but the expectations for reaching a comprehensive agreement ahead of the deadline were low — and heading lower — as the process formally began. How low? Writing on the eve of the negotiations, Politico’s Rachel Bade and Burgess Everett [said]( that “the prospect of a big deal on border security and immigration is essentially dead.” A narrow deal: There are widespread doubts that negotiators could put together an agreement involving the fraught issues of government funding, border security and the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program in just two weeks, so any deal that emerges is expected to focus only on the border and funding the government. Money for the border wall: Democrats don’t appear to be interested in providing any funding for the wall, and Republicans are expected to ask for the full $5.7 billion President Trump has demanded. The negotiations will likely turn on this fairly straightforward dispute, with some hope that a semantic sleight of hand — i.e., an agreement to fund some “border fencing” rather than a wall — can provide the basis for a deal that will allow Trump to declare victory and move on. But no one expects Democrats to give Trump the full amount he wants. “The fading prospects of the negotiation mean Trump is likely to receive only a fraction of the $5.7 billion he’s been seeking for his southern barrier in any deal, if one can be put together at all by Feb. 15,” Bade and Everett said. Comments by House Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Nita Lowey (D-NY) on Wednesday suggested that there is some room for maneuvering. Lowey said that Democrats are willing “to expand on the $1.6 billion in border security programs that House Democrats have already passed.” At the same time, Lowey warned that “smart border security is not overly reliant on physical barriers.” The Trump wildcard: In the hours before the negotiations began, Trump warned the committee that he won’t accept any deal that fails to include money for a border wall of some sort. “If the committee of Republicans and Democrats now meeting on Border Security is not discussing or contemplating a Wall or Physical Barrier, they are Wasting their time!” Trump [tweeted]( Wednesday morning. Trump has signaled that he is willing to declare a national emergency if negotiators can’t make an acceptable deal. “We’ll work with the Democrats and negotiate, and if we can’t do that, then we’ll do a — obviously we’ll do the emergency because that’s what it is. It’s a national emergency,” Trump said Friday as he announced the three-week deal that temporarily ended the shutdown. In an interview with Sean Hannity of Fox News on Tuesday, Eric Trump, the president’s son and adviser, said that he’s in favor of taking that step. “I want him to declare an emergency," he said. "Oh, I think he will," Hannity replied. Voters have other plans: Although another partial government shutdown or a newly declared national emergency remain distinct possibilities at the end of the negotiation process, most Americans say they’d rather see neither. According to a Morning Consult [poll]( released Wednesday, 53 percent of voters said Trump should neither shut down the government nor declare national emergency if he doesn’t get the money he has demanded for the wall. About 24 percent of poll respondents said that Trump should declare a national emergency if he doesn’t get the funds, while 9 percent said that Trump should shut down the government. Dems Want to Expand Social Security Democratic Reps. John Larson (CT), Conor Lamb (PA) and Jahana Hayes (CT) introduced a bill Wednesday that would increase Social Security benefits. The bill would boost average benefits by 2 percent, The Hill’s Naomi Jagoda [reported]( raise the income threshold for paying taxes on Social Security benefits and change the program’s cost-of-living adjustment formula. The bill is backed by more than 200 House Democrats. The bill also takes steps to provide more funds for the Social Security program, such as applying the payroll tax to higher income levels and increasing the contribution rate over time. The bill, which was put forward on the birthday of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who created Social Security in 1935, marks quite a shift for mainstream Democrats compared to 10 years ago. HuffPost’s Daniel Marans [wrote]( that, “In less than a decade, mainstream Democrats in Congress have gone from entertaining Social Security cuts to almost universally endorsing the program’s expansion.” Quote of the Day “I have a fear that we will talk and talk and talk and talk and people will die while we are talking and it will only get worse.” – Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD), speaking at a [House hearing on high drug prices]( Tuesday. How are we doing? Send your tips and feedback to yrosenberg@thefiscaltimes.com. Or connect with us on Twitter: [@yuvalrosenberg]( [@mdrainey]( and [@TheFiscalTimes](. And please tell your friends they can [sign up here]( to get their own copy of this newsletter! $13 Billion Navy Carrier Having Trouble Launching Planes The USS Gerald R. Ford is still bedeviled by serious technical issues, including 20 failures of its aircraft launch-and-landing systems during sea trials. None of the failures, which occurred during a total of 740 launches and landings, caused injuries or damages, the Navy said. Problematic for years, the ship’s electromagnetic catapults have attracted the interest of numerous critics, including President Trump. Robert Behler, the Pentagon’s director of operational testing, said that the ship will likely fail to meet a key requirement for the number of sorties flown per day. In a memo acquired by [Bloomberg News]( Behler said that while “improvements have occurred, poor and unknown reliability continues to plague the ship and key systems.” The Ford was delivered to the Navy in 2017, years behind schedule, and at $13 billion is the most expensive ship every built. News - [No GOP Appetite for a Second Shutdown]( – The Hill - [House Republicans Block Passage of Anti-Shutdown Resolution Despite Removal of Language Blaming Trump]( – Roll Call - [VA Unveils Proposal to Expand Private Healthcare for Veterans]( – The Hill - [U.S. Debt Sales Hit Records Again, Feeding Deficit Criticism]( – Bloomberg - [‘Green New Deal’ Tests Ocasio-Cortez’s Clout in Democratic House]( – Bloomberg - [Democrats and Republicans Clash Over Health Care Goals]( – Roll Call - [2 Key Democrats Against Legislation Using Automatic CRs to Prevent Shutdowns]( – Roll Call - [Foxconn May Not Build $10 Billion Wisconsin Plant Trump Touted]( – NBC News - [Pay Raise for Feds This Year Likely, as Two Proposals Gain Traction]( – Government Executive - [Beach Closed During Shutdown Can't Reopen Because Elephant Seals Took It Over]( – The Hill Views and Analysis - [Make Government Shutdowns a Thing of the Past: 3 Changes to Consider]( – USA Today Editorial Board - [How to Keep Government Running When Lawmakers Fail to Do Their Job]( – Maya MacGuineas, The Hill - [Trump’s Shutdown Forfeit Exposes Weakness of Populism]( – Janan Ganesh, Financial Times - [Kamala Harris, Get on the Tax Train]( – Ryan Cooper, The Week - [How Democrats' Tax Obsession Could Backfire]( – W. James Antle III, The Week - [5 Anti-Poverty Plans from 2020 Democratic Presidential Contenders, Explained]( – Dylan Matthews, Vox - [Kamala Harris and the Democrats’ Medicare-for-All Litmus Test]( – Dylan Scott, Vox - [Expanding Social Security: Popular from Sea to Shining Sea]( – Jon Bauman, The Hill - [Trump Says the Economy Is Unstoppable. Most Economists Say Otherwise.]( – Jim Tankersley, New York Times - [Under-the-Radar Issues That Could Affect the 2019 Economy]( – Gerard Scimeca, RealClear Markets - [Ocasio-Cortez Wants to Raise the Tax Rate on High Earners. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act Already Did]( – Adam Looney, Brookings - [A Third-Party Centrist Candidate Like Me Could Win the Presidency in 2020]( – Howard Schultz, USA Today - [Why Take Howard Schultz Seriously?]( – Jonathan Bernstein, Bloomberg - [The Unbearable Stupidity of Howard Schultz’s Presidential Fantasy]( – Mehdi Hasan, The Intercept Copyright © 2019 The Fiscal Times, All rights reserved. You are receiving this newsletter because you subscribed at our website, thefiscaltimes.com, or through Facebook. Our mailing address is: The Fiscal Times 399 Park AvenueNew York, NY 10022 [Add us to your address book]( If someone has forwarded this email to you, consider signing up for The Fiscal Times emails on our [website](. Want to change how you receive these emails? You can [update your preferences]( or [unsubscribe from this list](