Sen. Kamala Harris is the newly-elected junior senator from California, and one of the Democratic Party’s rising stars. She recently sat down for a live taping of the popular podcast Pod Save America in San Francisco. Jon Favreau asked Harris about what the Democrats’ positive message on healthcare should be. Her answer is worth exploring, for it gets at substantive decisions that Democrats must reckon with as they chart a path forward in both immediate resistance and future governance.
First, Harris said that “step number one is not to eliminate” Obamacare, reciting the Congressional Budget Office’s projection that the Republicans’ repeal bill will throw 24 million people off of their coverage. So far, so good—but that’s not a positive message, it’s a defensive one.
Next, she pivoted to talking about ways to improve Obamacare. But she only mentioned allowing the government to negotiate prescription drug costs “so these prescription drug companies aren’t just taking such advantage of us,” and pointed to the Epi-Pen price-gouging scandal.
Sensing that this was a pretty thin positive message, Jon Lovett pushed her to name more things that Democrats should do to improve healthcare. And Harris responded by pointing to…the Cadillac Tax. “I think we need to look at the Cadillac Tax and deal with that,” Harris said.
Harris continued, offering some prolonged word salad of stammering qualifiers before endorsing a Medicare for All single-payer system as the vision of progressive healthcare. “And then there is what we need to do around really at some point figuring out how at some level we are going to have a policy that is Medicare for All. That would be the ultimate and great place to be, Medicare for All.” Her pitch for Medicare for All won much applause from the crowd.
Harris declined to formally endorse the single-payer bill winding its way through the California legislature, saying, “I like the concept but we need to work out the details.” She concluded that as a country, “We need to get to a place where it is not a function of your income that you have access to healthcare.”
It’s worth unpacking that answer. Leading off her “positive message” on healthcare by talking about the Cadillac Tax is baffling to say the least. The Cadillac Tax is an Obamacare provision that imposes an excise tax on the most expensive — and generous — health insurance plans offered by employers. This is meant to both generate revenue for Obamacare’s coverage expansion, and to steer employers away from uber-comprehensive insurance plans that help drive up healthcare costs. The tax is unpopular—liberals like Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton have joined conservatives and labor groups in pushing for its repeal—and has been routinely delayed by Congress. It isn’t scheduled to take effect until next year.
Presumably, when Harris says that we need to “deal with” the Cadillac Tax, she means we need to repeal it. But endorsing a rollback of a subsidiary part of Obamacare that will help pay for its coverage expansions won’t exactly stir progressive ambitions.
Harris ultimately got around to re-iterating that guaranteed healthcare for all is the long-term progressive vision, backing a government-run system. She stood up for the principle that healthcare is a right that should not be dependent on one’s income. And letting Medicare negotiate drug prices is a fine idea—one that Trump himself might be amenable to working with Democrats on.
But there’s a lot to work through in Harris’s support for Medicare for All as the party’s positive vision. As I have written, there is both significant apprehension and large institutional hurdles surrounding single-payer healthcare that won’t be easily overcome. There are other progressive policies—like a Medicare buy-in, a public option, and expanded Medicaid eligibility—that would make progress toward government-provided healthcare for all, without crumbling under the weight of intense public and stakeholder opposition.
So is Harris endorsing Medicare for All as an imminent solution? If so, is she throwing out Obamacare and starting from scratch, or building on it with incremental reforms? What do those reforms look like? Does that make Medicare for All in fact just a long-term aspiration that maybe just might eventually obtain “at some level”?
In Harris’s defense, a podcast interview probably isn’t the venue to suss out these nuances. But without these details, “Medicare for All” becomes little more than a slogan—an applause line for liberal crowds. Maybe that’s the future of progressive health policy: campaign on “Medicare for All”, but enact “Medicare for More.”
Harris is also far from the only prominent Democrat to fumble a progressive healthcare message. Sen. Cory Booker (another potential 2020 contender) recently gave a similarly mealy-mouthed answer on Medicare for All, which his office cleaned up as “one of those ideas that must be considered.”
Like Booker, Harris is a compelling and engaging politician, and has an exciting future as a Democratic leader. Like many other prominent procedural or “rights-oriented” liberals, she seems much more at ease standing up for social justice than for economic justice. And she’s hardly the first upcoming Democratic politician to give a jumbled answer on healthcare—Barack Obama famously fell flat at a healthcare forum early in his 2008 campaign for president.
But Harris’s answer is illustrative of a bigger problem for the Democratic Party. Maybe Democrats have been too consumed with the fate to save what they’ve already accomplish to flesh out just exactly what comes next. But in resisting Republican efforts to tear down Obamacare, it’s essential to explain just what exactly the Democratic alternative looks like. If Harris’s positive message on healthcare is any indication, there’s more work to be done on figuring out just what the alternative will be.