Do Kamala Harris and Joe Biden Really Understand Their Own Health Plans?

The debate didn’t offer much clarity on what the 2020 candidates want to do.

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) and former Vice President Joe Biden participate in the second of two Democratic presidential primary debates on Wednesday, July 31, 2019 in Detroit. Paul Sancya/AP

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

After months of not clarifying where, exactly, she stood on the details of health care reform, Sen. Kamala Harris released her idea for a version of Medicare for All earlier this week, which seemed designed to give her a specific platform to discuss at Wednesday’s Democratic primary debate. And the night kicked off on just that topic. “I designed a plan,” Harris said, “where, yes, responsive to the needs of American families, there will be a public plan, under my plan for Medicare, and a private plan, under my plan for Medicare.”

Wait, what? The initial question that provoked her statement read like parody in hindsight: CNN’s Dana Bash noted that former Vice President Joe Biden had described Harris’ proposal as “part of a confusing pattern of equivocating about your health care stance.” What did she have to say to that?

But instead of clearing up the confusion, Harris struggled to explain what she had in mind. A few minutes later, she defended her decision to expand Medicare coverage to the masses by noting that “millions of seniors are going into the Medicare system and they are getting full coverage and the kind of coverage they need.” Harris neglected to note that the current Medicare system is often criticized for not offering dental or vision coverage—or that her very own would plan remedy those shortcomings.

Biden quickly took aim at Harris’ words, but his rebuttal didn’t offer much detail about what his own plan would entail, as the former vice president simply noted that health care was the most important issue, and that “you can’t beat President Trump with double-talk on this plan.” But over the next 45 minutes, all that seemed to emerge from the two Democratic frontrunners was “double-talk” that did little to clarify where either candidate stood on health care.

Both campaigns had strived to stake out their territory on health care since they faced off during the first round of debates in June. Earlier in July, the Biden campaign released a plan that is essentially a beefed-up version of the Affordable Care Act—along with the addition of offering a public option for people who don’t have, or don’t like, employer-based coverage. And on Monday, Harris shared her much-anticipated vision, which suggested a decade-long transition to a single-payer plan that would reserve a more limited role for private insurance.

But if primary voters had hoped to walk away from Wednesday’s debate with some of the key points of those health care platforms, they were sorely disappointed. Lucidity, it seems, only extended to the prior evening’s sparring, when former Maryland Rep. John Delaney and Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan served as foils to Sens. Bernie Sanders (Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), who used the formers’ jabs as opportunities to lay out their vision for single-payer health care.

The lackluster delivery on Wednesday raised questions as to how well either Biden or Harris even understood what was in their own plans. While Harris underscored the motivation behind why health insurance shouldn’t be tied to employment, she wasn’t able to outline the precise circumstances under which employers could offer private insurance to their employees. “Private insurance companies and private carriers, if they comply by our rules and play by our rules, will be able to offer [companies’] employees health care coverage under a private Medicare plan or they can have the option of a public Medicare plan,” she said. And when the former VP charged that the plan would be too expensive costing $3 trillion per year, Harris sidestepped explaining how she’d pay for that cost, only offering up that “the cost of doing nothing is far too expensive. Second, we are now paying $3 trillion a year for health care in America. Over the next 10 years, it’s probably going to be $6 trillion. We must act.”

Biden, meanwhile, insisted that everyone would be covered under his plan, even though an estimated 10 million Americans wouldn’t be, and he mistakenly said his plan would cap copays at $1,000 (his proposal is to actually limit deductibles to $1,000 per year).

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate