‘Medicare For All’ Is A Rallying Cry For 2020 Progressives — But That Means Different Things To Different People
Among other things, the Medicare program itself looks a lot different -- and more privately operated -- than it did when Democrats first started advocating for a "Medicare for All" system. As the 2020 jockeying among Democrats commences, what exactly does that sweeping idea mean for its proponents?
The New York Times:
‘Medicare For All’ Gains Favor With Democrats Looking Ahead To 2020
More and more Democrats, fed up with private health insurance companies, are endorsing the goal of a government-run, single-payer system like Medicare for all Americans. But they have discovered a problem. More than one-third of Medicare beneficiaries are in Medicare Advantage plans, run not by the government but by private insurers. (Pear, 12/29)
Democratic Left Playing A Long Game To Get `Medicare For All'
A clamor to create “Medicare for All” has exploded on the left. Democratic presidential hopefuls are racing to co-sponsor legislation, rising stars in the party are embracing it, and national polls show Americans warming to the concept. But even the idea’s most fervent backers acknowledge that the goal is far off in the distance, beyond the next year or even the 2020 election. Their aim for now is to shift the health care debate. By making single-payer health care -- a model under which all Americans would get their insurance from a single government plan -- the progressive position, advocates argue that gives Democrats representing conservative areas of the country political cover to support more modest proposals to expand the government’s role in health insurance. (Kapur, 12/26)
The Wall Street Journal:
House Democrats Weigh Risks Of Medicare-For-All Push In 2019
A Medicare for All plan—of which there are currently eight proposals, with the boldest requiring the government to operate taxpayer-funded health care for all—is unlikely to become law, given Republicans’ enlarged majority in the Senate. But promoting such an idea, or declining to, would send a strong signal about the party’s direction heading toward the 2020 elections. Both paths carry political risks, but with voters deeply concerned about health care, it’s a discussion Democrats may not be able to avoid. “It would almost be negligent of us to not have an expanded debate now,” said Rep. John Yarmuth (D., Ky.), who’s in line to chair the Budget Committee, citing a Texas judge’s recent ruling that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional. (Armour and Peterson, 12/27)
‘Medicare For All’ Advocates Emboldened By ObamaCare Lawsuit
“In light of the Republican Party’s assault, a version of Medicare for all is necessary for the future," said Topher Spiro, vice president for health policy at the Center for American Progress. "There are just too many points of vulnerability in the current system.” The court decision in Texas that invalidates ObamaCare in its entirety came on the heels of sweeping Democratic victories in the midterm elections, a combination that has energized advocates of Medicare for all. (Weixel, 12/30)
En Route To Congress, California Democrats Hit Wall On ‘Medicare-For-All’
Each of the seven California Democrats who flipped Republican congressional seats in the midterm election campaigned for more government-funded health care — with most of them calling for a complete government takeover. So when they join the Golden State’s delegation this week, they will make it the largest state bloc to support “Medicare-for-all” in the U.S. House of Representatives. And Democrats, of course, will control the House. (Young, 1/2)