Home | About | Donate

'Bad Policy and Bad Politics': Kamala Harris Under Fire for Healthcare Plan That Preserves Major Role for Private Insurance Industry

Originally published at http://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/07/29/bad-policy-and-bad-politics-kamala-harris-under-fire-healthcare-plan-preserves-major


All of these so called “Centrists” trying to bridge the gap between what Health Insurers want and what the people want are frauds.

The entire DNC by extension is a fraud. You can not try to “straddle the fence” on Health Care catering both to the Public and the Health Insurance industry because the Insurance industry has NOTHING to do with providing health care. They are only there to get a cut of the monies spent on it.

Ms Harris should openly state “I am here to ensure the Insurance industry continues to get a cut”. That would be honesty.


The way I see it—and I haven’t read enough about her plan admittedly—is she’s really expanding Medicare for All, not just borrowing a phrase. People will have an option, as seniors do now under Medicare, of taking advantage of private plans that compete under Medicare guidelines. Given this is the Medicare status quo, I don’t see this as unreasonable, and it definitely comports with what Americans tell pollsters, though it may not go as far as we’d like.

This just spin. The option consists of Taxpayer dollars going to the Insurance industry in order to give that senior that supposed choice.

The issue is not whether “More people are covered” . It is Taxpayer dollars going to Private insurance industries to get those people covered. Why is the Insurance industry warranted those dollars? Why is that model needed?


Dems like Harris are more tricky and dangerous than republicans. She always has her eyes on the prize, which in her case is money. At least with republicans you know what you’re getting.


This is what Medicare does now. It’s not tricky spin, it’s the actual program that exists. She appears to be expanding the program, with Medicare Advantage plans, for all Americans. People say they like Medicare, say they want public and private options, so she is saying, “sure.” You may not like this for a variety of reasons, but if people want Medicare, she’s basically offering it to them.

Again, I haven’t read the full details of her plan, just initial media reports so caveat emptor.

Medicare Advantage plans are deceptively presented as Medicare, but they are basically private insurance - with ALL of the problems and evils that we know come with for-profit insurance - in which Medicare pays most or all of the premium. They are a stealth way of privatizing Medicare. Any candidate who promotes Medicare Advantage plans is actually pushing the long-term abolition and privatization of Medicare.


Harris, another corporate DINO establishment tool for big-money and nothing really changes - she is not the one, only another shill in the Biden. Clintons, Obama, camp of sold-out Dem deceivers.

Say goodnight, Gracie!


Correct, insurance is more akin to payday loan companies than health care. Then there is ‘Medicare Advantage’ wherein the only ‘advantage’ is to the insurance companies… according to endless TV ads all you have to do to enjoy Medicare Advantage is get sick. HarrisAdvantageCare will cost billions more per year and allow the multibillion dollar per year fraudulent billings racket to continue. Should be good for her campaign coffers.


Seems like a plan that uses an expansion of the private insurer Medicare Advantage program as a cornerstone is bad news. Everything that I’ve heard is that Medicate Advantage is one of the main wedges private insurers have been using to gain a foothold in single payer, government run plans.

Also, curious how this ten-year transition is supposed to take place - what are the steps in the transition?


The problem is, a multi-hundred-billion-dollar industry is simply not going to lay down and die. They will overthrow the government before any kind of pure, government-run single payer system is allowed to be abruptly introduced. Chile ca. 1973 and current-day Venezuela come to mind. Yes, they did it in Canada and other countries, but that was before the rise of neoliberalism and in countries without the thuggish banana-republic economics of most of the Americas (the few exceptions being Canada, Costa Rica, and Cuba), including the USA.

I don’t like this state of affairs at all, but I like looking at the world through realistic eyes. Some kind of transitional hybrid system will be the best we can hope for on the short term.

Don’t think they haven’t tried to get a foothold in Canada. ( &^ still are )


They fought it like heck in Saskatchewan when it first introduced. This included strikes by Doctors and active lobbying by the Health insurance industry. I will grant that the economies are much different today and in particular Corporatism even more entrenched then it was due to NAFTA and other such treaties but would also suggest that means that it even more important that it be fought against.

This is the single most likely sector in the US economy where there an opening to roll back Corporatism. If you compromise on this issue you will further entrench its power and the opportunity may never come again.


She is largely a fraud - good at spouting predictable homilies and platitudes as required, but not much else.
For not prosecuting Mnuchin’s OneWest Bank while she was CA A.G., that alone disqualifies her.


Join the organizing for Expanded, Improved Medicare For All:

Contact Health Over Profit and join in the Maestro Conference by registering

I suggest you actually read the Request for Action before making such an unfounded statement. I discussed it here already, but it was very far from a slam dunk case and featured a strong likelihood that at best, a court would award minimal restitution years down the line, if at all. The attorneys were not even certain they’d be able to go into discovery because the case itself was based on untested legal theories.

It’s the private plans that are “taking advantage”
of patients if the Medicare services are adequately covered.


Maybe, but 1/3 of Medicare recipients choose to participate in Advantage plans. You don’t have to like that those plans exist, but those choices are real for people—also voters—that make them.


Have a look.

I think you need to look at it, I have already. I quote directly from the Request for Action in my linked comment. Frankly, I think the Intercept mischaracterized the case going for a cheap headline.