 So, after the first 2020 Democratic Party primary debate, there has been so much confusion about Medicare for All and specifically what Medicare for All entails, because there were two very specific questions asked on both nights. Would you abolish private insurance? Now on night one, Elizabeth Warren and Bill de Blasio were the only two candidates on stage that raised their hands and said, yes, we would abolish private. And on night two, Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris were the only two candidates that raised their hands and said that they would abolish private. But peak confusion, I think, came after the debate when Kamala Harris seemingly backtracked and claimed, you know what, maybe I'm actually not in favor of abolishing private because I was confused by the wording of the question and when they asked if my support of Medicare for All means that I would get rid of private insurance, I thought they were talking about my own private insurance. Sure, Dan. Now, maybe it's just me, but I don't really find that too persuasive given that she debated on the second night and she already should have anticipated that question. But nonetheless, here's what she had to say about Medicare for All and abolishing private insurance. On healthcare last night, you were asked to raise your hands the entire panel, 10 of you, if you believe eliminating private insurance should be part of the Medicare for All proposal. You and Bernie Sanders both raised your hands. You've been asked and sort of clarified this question a couple of times over the course of the campaign. So once and for all, do you believe that private insurance should be eliminated in this country? No. You don't? No, I do not. But you raised your hand last night. But the question was, would you give up your private insurance for that option? And I said yes. Oh, I think you heard it differently than others then. Probably, because that's what I heard. Sorry, but I just don't believe her because all of the other candidates knew what Lester Holt was asking. And this isn't the first time that Kamala Harris has been wishy-washy with regard to Medicare for All. Back in January, if you'll recall, she proclaimed proudly so at the first scene in Town Hall that she did that she would get rid of private insurance under Medicare for All. Let's eliminate all of that. Let's move on. Less than 24 hours later, she backtracked and said, you know, actually, I believe that there are many paths to Medicare for All. And now she, I'm assuming landed on the permanent position of I support Medicare for All, but I also support keeping private supplemental insurance. So now this begs the question, what the hell does Medicare for All actually entail? Can you still technically support Medicare for All and support keeping private supplemental insurance? Or do you actually need to be one of the people that raised your hand and said, yes, I will get rid of private insurance? Well, I'll put it this way. If you have cosponsored Bernie Sanders' bill or Pramila Jayapal's bill, then you haven't read the bill if you don't explicitly commit to getting rid of private insurance because the bill is designed to do just that, get rid of private insurance. Now there has been so much confusion over this, Bernie Sanders literally had to come out and clarify, if you support Medicare for All, I repeat, if you support Medicare for All, let's get on the same page and agree to get rid of private. So he had Shaquille Brewster of NBC News tweet out Bernie's answer. He says Bernie Sanders put out a new statement seemingly responding to Kamala Harris walking back her perceived support for Medicare for All via hand raised, idem debate of abolishing private insurance through Medicare for All. And here's what Bernie Sanders said specifically, quote, let us all be very clear about this. Medicare for All, you have to be willing to end the greed of the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries. That means boldly transforming our dysfunctional system by ending the use of private health insurance, except to cover non-essential care like cosmetic surgeries. And it means guaranteeing healthcare to everyone through Medicare with no premiums, no deductibles and no copays. It is imperative that we remain steadfast in our commitment to guarantee healthcare as a human right and no longer allow private corporations to make billions of dollars in profits off Americans healthcare. Now Shaquille asked a very important follow-up because it seems like what Kamala is saying is that she wants to have her cake and eat it too. She wants you to think she supports Medicare for All, but she also wants to be able to have this caveat where, you know, I support supplemental insurance as well. Here's what Shaquille asked Bernie. Last night I asked Senator Bernie Sanders why he believes it is necessary to abolish private health insurance and if allowing insurance companies to operate privately under his plan could be a potential compromise. He said no multiple times. So Shaq said one of the central divides over Medicare for All is the idea of private insurance and abolishing private insurance. Could that be a potential compromise to at least allow them to? Bernie then interrupted saying no, no, no. And he went on to explain how abolishing private means you still keep the same doctor. Now Shaq followed up again asking why abolish those private insurers though. To which Bernie Sanders then responded saying because at the end of the day what the current system is is dysfunctional. And if you want to provide healthcare to all people in a responsibly cost effective way you cannot have an insurance industry dominating healthcare in America. I mean what is the function of the healthcare industry? Is it to provide healthcare? No. It's to make money. And the top 5 companies made $20 billion over the last 5 years. The top 10 drug companies made $69 billion and yet we have a situation where 1 in 5 Americans cannot even afford the medicine they need. You gotta take them on. You cannot have healthcare for all as a human right under the current system. So you heard it right there from the horse's mouth. He couldn't be more clear. If you support Medicare for all you need to commit to getting rid of private insurance. So that means that if you are one of the candidates on stage that did not raise your hand either you don't actually support Medicare for all or you are uninformed about the details of the bill that you supported in Congress or in the Senate. Details matter. Details are incredibly important and for those who are confused let's clear up the confusion by just doing something a little bit crazy. Let's read the bill. So when you go to section 107 of Bernie Sanders Medicare for all bill it states very clearly that duplicative care is prohibited. It states quote it shall be unlawful for a private health insurer to sell health insurance coverage that duplicates the benefits provided under this act or an employer to provide benefits for an employee, former employee or dependents of an employee or former employee that duplicates the benefits provided under this act. So very clearly it outlaws duplicative care. Now we'll talk about the specific implications but there's also a follow up here. Section 107 B states quote nothing in this act shall be construed as prohibiting the sale of health insurance coverage for any additional benefits not covered in this act. So I get why there's a lot of confusion. It seems contradictory for Bernie Sanders to say well if you support Medicare for all you need to commit to getting rid of private because it says right here this is not to be construed as prohibiting the sale of health insurance. However, we need to talk about the way that this bill is designed and what it intends to accomplish because ultimately the goal of this bill is to get rid of private health insurance companies. So if it outlaws duplicative care that is anything covered under Medicare for all cannot be offered supplementally through a private health insurance company then what's going to be left. Well let's look at the actual bill and see what it provides. We'll look at section 201 and as you can see here the benefits are comprehensive like this is true universal health care it covers virtually everything almost everything is covered here so there's not really going to be need for supplemental insurance of any kind and even the Washington Post who's no fan of Bernie Sanders writes quote it's worth noting that Sanders plan would be more sweeping in its coverage than just about any existing universal health care system for instance Canadians must buy private insurance for prescription drugs dentists and optometry while Britain has a parallel private system that about 10% of the population participates in. So think about that what Bernie Sanders and Pramila Jayapal's bill does is it offers health care coverage that is so comprehensive if we get that bill passed as it is we will have a stronger universal health care system than Canada and the UK. Now let's get back to this prohibition on duplicative care and let's put two and two together so if duplicative care is outlawed by Medicare for all but simultaneously if Medicare for all covers basically everything what's the implication of that we're effectively getting rid of private health insurance companies see you don't have to explicitly outlaw them to accomplish the same goal what we're essentially doing the way that these bills both Bernie's and Jayapals are designed is to basically regulate these private health insurance companies out of existence so we make a bill so comprehensive and then outlaw duplicative care that there's nothing left for them to do they don't have any way to offer some type of supplemental care because everything is covered under Bernie Sanders Medicare for all bill so going back to section 107 yes I understand it very clearly says that it doesn't prohibit the sale of health insurance coverage for any additional benefits not covered but you see the thing that's important is that it covers everything it's better than Canada's it's better than Britain's so that's a good thing we don't want to water down our own Medicare for all bill to find some way to accommodate these for profit health insurance companies that just want to rip you off no we are constructing a universal health care system that covers everything so if there's not going to be much left for them to do then we're effectively getting rid of them because they're not going to stick around if they can't profit off of health care but that's a good thing but Mike I know the I already know what you're gonna say you're gonna comment saying Mike what if I want a facelift Bernie Sanders Medicare for all plan doesn't cover cosmetic procedures like a facelift and yes that is correct so you've got me there however this still doesn't necessarily mean that we will be keeping private insurance companies because let's ask ourselves this let's say hypothetically speaking I wanted to get a facelift how would I pay for that am I gonna be able to find a private insurance company that will cover the cost or even a fraction of a percent of the cost of that facelift no that's that's not gonna that's not gonna happen because they can't profit off of a facelift so what you'd have to do is you would have to finance these types of procedures where you get a type of credit card like care credit and then they will pay for that procedure and then you pay them back in monthly installments and then you pay interest on top of that that's what we do now if you want a facelift and that's what we would continue to do under Medicare for all system so do you understand if we don't use insurance companies for facelifts now why would we be arguing that they're going to exist to provide us with like facelifts and breast augmentation surgeries when they don't do that anyway because again let's remember what these companies are about these insurance companies they're not gonna cover something unless they believe they can make money so here's the thing what do you think is gonna happen let's say we get the Medicare for all past right it's passed as it is and we don't water it down and we outlawed duplicate duplicative care explicitly do you think it's more likely that these health insurance companies are going to take a magnifying glass and go over this Medicare for all bill and see where the gaps are so they can offer coverage for you know these this dozen or so procedures hypothetically or will they just likely go out of business you and I both know that if they can make enough profit the investors are gonna bounce and they're gonna go on to the next money making adventure therefore they're probably just gonna go out of business so do you understand we are regulating them out of existence so if you support Medicare for all this should be a goal for you and we shouldn't be arguing yeah you know we're gonna keep supplemental too because if we do that we're making an argument for the health insurance companies there's virtually nothing that we will need private insurance companies for if we get Medicare for all and understand if you accept the premise that private health insurance companies can and should exist under a Medicare for all system then you've already compromised before negotiations began because you're buying into the premise that maybe there should be a role for private health insurance companies and if you do that if you give them an inch they're gonna take a mile because that's how capitalism works they're gonna say oh so you think that there should be a role for us well should be this big or this big or this big or this big do you really want to open that door because I don't want to open that door I want to shut out all these capitalistic forces that will pick at whatever weaknesses in our Medicare for all system and I want them gone completely we neutralize the threat and we get the profit entirely out of the health care system that's what we should be arguing in favor of not trying to find a way to make an argument on behalf of the health insurance companies unwittingly because I think that that's what we're doing if we're trying to rationalize different ways that you know these private health insurance companies can still exist and I think that Adam Gaffney of the nation put it best quote the only way to make room for a significant role for private insurance in the American context is to make the public system paltry or skimpier to impose onerous copays and deductibles or to let the rich preferentially displaced working class people from hospital beds and doctors offices but it doesn't seem to make sense to punch holes in your own floor just to create work for a carpenter that is particularly true if your floor is your health care and your carpenter is an extractive insurance giant exactly we don't need private health insurance companies we need to get rid of them completely and argue that that's what we should be doing and force Republicans to take a stand where they are the ones defending these for-profit health insurance companies that only exist to profit off of us and rip us off but you see I think a reason why there's so much confusion here is because as Americans we can't grapple with the reality of a health care system where private insurance doesn't actually exist so what we end up doing is trying to find ways to think of things that they can do well maybe they can do this maybe they can do that but what we need to do is grapple with the reality that if we truly care about the delivery of health care specifically and exclusively then there's no role for private health insurance companies so if you support Medicare for all then you should agree that Bernie Sanders and Pramila Jayapal's bills are stronger because they're designed to get rid of private health insurance companies rather than going out of our way to argue that they can and should still exist under Medicare for all in order to make people who don't really understand it feel better that isn't very productive as leftists we need to be educating people about why getting rid of private is a good thing and here's the thing let's say hypothetically speaking that there is a weakness in Bernie Sanders Medicare for all plan is it designed so technically there can be some role for private insurance so let's say hypothetically speaking it doesn't cover hip replacement surgery it does but just for argument's sake let's say that it doesn't cover that and we removed that from the bill can a private insurance company technically step in and fill that gap and offer insurance for that technically yes they wouldn't again because they're not going to offer insurance for one procedure like a facelift like anything because again they're only going to offer you coverage if they can profit off of you but a private insurance company can technically do that so how do we make this argument as progressives do we say well look you know what if a private insurance company wants to take care of that that's fine no that shouldn't be our argument our argument should be let's strengthen Medicare for all to stop these private insurance companies from stepping in and filling that role if there's any perceived weakness or actual weakness in these bills then we shouldn't argue hey let's let private insurance take care of that we should be arguing to improve Medicare for all even more it's already incredibly solid and strong but if there's any weaknesses we shouldn't just instinctively pivot to saying hey okay I found something for you to do private insurance companies we should be arguing alright let's improve the bill that's what our line of argument should be and we all need to get on the same page about this so the candidates like Kamala Harris who are hell-bent on saying look I promise you you'll be able to keep private if that's what you want they're fundamentally misunderstanding the text of the bill that they co-sponsored that or they're not realizing that they're unwittingly buying into the propaganda from the insurance companies that are pushing this idea that people care about their private insurance when they don't care about private they care about keeping their doctor in fact a new poll from morning consult confirms that they care about keeping their doctor not their private insurance so let's use that information to our advantage knowing people care about keeping their doctor and that their private insurance company I mean talk to anyone you're not going to find a single person who cares about etna or signa or blue cross blue shield nobody cares about that they want to keep their doctor so let's use that to our advantage and let's let Republicans defend the private health insurance companies we don't need to do that as progressives that shouldn't be our place so any candidate who did not raise their hand again either they don't truly support Medicare for all or they're misinformed and it's not just the people on the debate stage love them to death but Ro Khanna was also incorrect about this and he said look Warren and Bernie's plans they allow you to keep supplemental or do supplemental in loom of Medicare for all something along those lines and paraphrasing but row that's not actually correct and even if row is arguing in good faith and he's trying to find ways to sell Medicare for all he doesn't have the details correct he previously claimed Medicare for all would save 17 trillion dollars because if our current system costs 49 trillion and Medicare for all costs 32 trillion then if you minus 49 trillion from 32 trillion then that's the savings of 17 trillion except this was based off of an article that was completely incorrect in its math and the author of this article had to retract everything because our current system costs 59 trillion dollars overall not 49 trillion and that 32 trillion statistic refers to the increase in federal spending of health care services but wouldn't you know account for the decrease in state and local spending as well so it's incredibly misleading and I'm not trying to pick on Ro Khanna because he absolutely means well and he's arguing in good faith and he's trying to figure out ways to make Medicare for all more appealing but if we don't get these facts right that are basic facts then the Republicans are going to attack us for that so we need to know our numbers we need to know about the details of the plans that we actually support and we need to make sure that we protect ourselves against Republican Party attacks by citing what Medicare for all actually is it's about going forward all of us getting on the same page and acknowledging that Medicare for all is about getting rid of private insurance that's a goal otherwise what's the point why would we need to construct a system so robust so comprehensive if we're still trying to think of ways in our head to have private health insurance companies do something we don't have private supplemental firefighter insurance so it's equally insane to still allow supplemental insurance for private health insurance companies so we don't need them we just don't and look even Tulsi Gabbard she was wrong on this she didn't raise her hand now here's one thing that I'll say about Tulsi she's been consistent here and she's never backed away from the position of Medicare for all so I would assume that like Ro Khanna she just doesn't know about the details here but you have to not contort and find a way to you know rethink what Medicare for all is just so it aligns with the candidate that you support what you need to do is get the candidate to move to what objectively is the true position what is factually going to happen if we codify Medicare for all into law and if we do get Medicare for all it gets rid of private health insurance companies but that's a good thing that's what we need to defend and inevitably when negotiations happen that duplicative coverage ban is going to be the very very first thing that Republicans are going to pick at but we need to argue vigorously from the position that we will not compromise and allow any private insurance companies none and sure we'll legally allow them to exist technically but will they under Medicare for all probably not so let's argue from a position of strength and that we're not going to accept any compromises and let's not compromise before negotiations for Medicare for all even begin because if you say that we should allow for supplemental insurance then that's what you're doing you're compromising you're saying I'm carving out a role under my version of Medicare for all or my vision for Medicare for all where there is you know some type of necessity or need for private insurance companies but that's harmful we need to get rid of them and if you support Medicare for all you should get rid of them so Elizabeth Warren even if she raised her hand I'm sorry she's been too wishy washy on Medicare for all she's been waffling back and forth I just don't trust her on this build a bloodsio he endorsed Hillary Clinton in 2016 over Bernie Sanders the candidate who actually supports Medicare for all don't trust him Tulsi Gabbard she should have raised her hand but she didn't but she has been consistent on saying she supports Medicare for all which means something which tells me that maybe she just is kind of like Ro Khanna where she's trying to argue in a position that is seemingly going to make her argument more valid and you know be able to stand up better against Republican Party scrutiny but what matters are the details the one candidate who's been consistent who's been the strongest on Medicare for all objectively speaking is Bernie Sanders so at the end of the day we all need to get on the same page and follow Bernie's lead here our message collectively as members of the progressive left should be abolish private keep your doctor or you can use doctor stay private goes away something along those lines not oh no no I promise you we're not going to get rid of you know private insurance there's going to be some role that shouldn't be our message because it's misleading and you're getting people to focus on the wrong thing we shouldn't be focusing on keeping supplemental insurance and emphasizing that small little portion of section 107 b because again Medicare for all is designed to effectively get rid of these private insurance companies again you don't need to ban them to accomplish that goal of regulating them out of existence so let's argue from the position of strength that we want to get rid of private insurance companies and if you want to defend private companies you can do that but understand that they're not very popular and the American people according to the morning consult poll they're with us not with you if you want to keep private because people want to keep their doctor and Medicare for all absolutely is designed to let that happen because we dismantle this idea of networks and we turn America into one giant network abolish private keep your doctor that's what our messaging should be because it's factually correct and it is in line with both Medicare for all bills in the house and in the Senate. Pramila Jayapal and Bernie Sanders they didn't just come up with these designs for these Medicare for all bills you know on a whim last year these bills are the latest iterations of Medicare for all proposals that have spent decades being fleshed out by Medicare for all experts and activists so for those of us to step in and say we need to find some role for supplemental I promise you we won't totally eliminate them I mean we're kind of undercutting the grassroots and what they've been fighting for we don't need a profit motive and these you know these for profit companies in our system trying to corrupt it trying to get Medicare for all to offer less so they can come in and profit off of offering us more the goal say with me is to abolish private but keep your doctor let's all get on the same page here because it's important details matter and if a candidate doesn't support getting rid of private then please educate them and don't just accept that they have the correct vision for Medicare for all because they may be misled I know Rokana is incorrect here and I know Tulsi Gabbard probably means well but she's not correct here let's try to get them on the same page as Bernie Sanders and Pramila Jayapal who are the architects of these bills who drafted these bills with the feedback of people fighting for Medicare for all for decades with the experts so please let's get the messaging right abolish private keep your doctor it's that simple