Kamala Harris Flips AGAIN on Healthcare After Debate?

Kamala Harris Flips AGAIN on Healthcare After Debate?



So I'm almost in a sense redoing a story from
January this year, which is that Carla Harris is again being
accused of flip flopping and backing away from Medicare for all. But this time I actually don't think she is. I think there is a flip flop here, but it's
a different one from the one that most people are talking about. So let me set this up for you. Um, we need to be really clear about the terrible
way in which the healthcare questions were asked to the Democratic primary candidates
in night one and night two of the debate. The main problem is the way that those questions
were framed was bound to lead to confusion. And I wish that candidates had actually called
out the framing of those questions, but I'll back up and we'll get to that. Back in January, Kamala Harris did a CNN town
hall and during the CNN town call town hall, she was asked about Medicare for all. And here's what she had to say. What is your solution to ensure that people
have access to quality health care at an affordable price? And does that solution involve cutting insurance
companies as we know them out of the equation? I believe the solution, and I'm, and I'm actually
feel very strongly about this, is that we need to have medicare for all. That's just the bottom line. So that was very definitive. But then the day after that she backed off
and advisor of hers put out a statement and saying, well, she's open to more moderate
ideas as well, like preserving d in the industry we have and making tweaks to Obamacare and
it appeared to be a significant backing off from Medicare for all. So then the debate happens late last week
and the day after Carla Harris is interviewed and once again the accusation start flying
that Kamala Harris is flip-flopping that during the debate she raised her hand and said, I'm
for Medicare for all. And that the day after the debate she backed
off of that and said, I'm not actually for Medicare for all. There is a flip flop here, but it is not the
one that is being reported at Camila. Harris w said she was for Medicare for all
in the town hall in January. The next day she did sort of back off of it. And now she is again saying that she, she's
for Medicare for all. Uh, the confusion is again, how that question
was asked. So net let's now look, and this is mostly
visual, this is when the candidates were asked, raise your hand on healthcare, but listen
to how the question was framed. Who here would abolish their private health
insurance in favor of a government plan? Yeah. Right. So Kamala Harris raises her hand there. And as I said at the time, this was a terrible,
terrible question. This led to confusion. This led to people being able to just go a
cop out claim they didn't understand it, whatever. And case in point, Kamala Harris was interviewed
on CBS the day after the debate and she said, Oh yeah, I raised my hand. But the question was, would I give up my private
insurance for a government plan? Not should I, uh, would I want private insurance
abolished? And then she gets into an argument with the
interviewer. The interviewer says, no, no, the question
was should private insurance be made illegal? And I called this question out because it
was improperly asked for exactly this reason and then Camilla Harris gives us, I guess
what you would call her real position on this issue at this point in time. Senator a another defining moment in the debate
was when every candidate was asked to raise their hand if they would abolish private insurance. In that moment you raised your hand, but afterwards
your campaign says, actually that's not your position. So what is your position on private insurance? So the question was would you be willing to
give up your private insurance? That's not how it was such a plan and that's
what you heard. Right. Okay. Then yeah, that's certainly what I heard. And I'm in terms of, I am supportive of Medicare
for all and under Medicare for all policy, private insurance would certainly exist and
for supplemental, um, coverage, but under Medicare for all and my vision of it, we would
actually extend benefits. So, for example, vision care, dental care,
hearing aids, which currently are not covered in, and anyone you know who is a senior can
tell you they're extremely expensive and people have to come out of pocket to pay for them. I'm included in my perspective on the issue
of private insurance is this, and I told the story last night, look, any night in America,
there is some parent who's got a child who has a fever that's out of control and going
to the emergency room to get help in the middle of the night. And then looking at those sliding glass doors
as they're in their car, in the parking lot, concerned that if they walk through those
sliding glass doors, they're going to be out of pocket $5,000 because of the deductible. They've got insurance, all right? They're going to be out of pocket $5,000 we're
going to have to leave it there. So you know, 91% and I'll just add 91% of
the doctors in America today are in Medicare, so you won't lose your doctor. So I don't actually see this as a flip flop
from the debate in the way that I understood the question, but the whole point is the question
was terribly asked what did they actually mean by the question? Were they saying would you personally given
the option of giving up your private insurance for a government plan opt for that plan. That was a reasonable way to understand the
question. Others understood it to be this sort of right
wing meme talking point of Democrats would make private illegal if such a government
plan was put forward and the question by virtue of being a terrible question and improperly
asked led to exactly this type of thing. So I don't see the flip flop that some people
are claiming. I don't see that Camilo raising her hand means
yes to Medicare for all. And then in the interview she said she's against
it. My interpretation of the Commonwealth flip
flop is that in the town hall she said, I'm for Medicare for all and got the political
benefit of that the next day. A statement was put out in January saying,
well, she's open to other options as well, but she likes Medicare for all and now apparently,
uh, putting her finger to the wind and recognizing that this is not a good path forward if she
is not for Medicare for all. Look at how Joe Biden is suffering as a result
of his position on healthcare. She now again is saying, Oh yeah, I am just
for Medicare for all. So bottom line, it does seem that commonly
Harris is on the Medicare for all train right now. But remember she can very easily pay lip service
to it and say, I'm in favor of it without having any real plan or goal of implementing
it. If she were to become president of the United
States, we need clarity from our elected officials, from the candidates in particular about what
their policy is. And you have to understand, is someone saying,
I'm for Medicare for all. If you don't follow that up and say, okay,
if instead what was proposed were simply some tweaks to Obamacare, would that be okay with
you? Unless you ask that follow up. It's very easy to say, I'm for Medicare for
all and I'm for the public option and I'm for tweaking Obamacare and I'm for also not
really making too many changes other than maybe expanding access to Medicaid. You've got to go further and this is why the
debate question fell so, so flat where now we're arguing about which is the flop. If there is one that Kamala Harris made, rather
than a better asked question during the debate would have given us much more valuable information
about what these candidates actually stand for.

20 comments

  1. They will never ask Kamalla a question to tie her down. They save the poor frame trick questions for Bernie.

  2. To be even more derisive, they asked them to indicate in a binary way. There was no option to abstain other than to raise a ruckus. :-/ I'm not sure if they have some devilish plan in place by asking these questions the way that they do, or if it's just because the lights are on but no one is home.

  3. Why is David uploading videos from a place other than his normal studio? Curious about this. Good video, good points.

  4. I think every candidate should have a standard web site with their plans and positions spelled out for the record. I find these debates rather uninformative.

  5. She is lame, she'd be no match for the orange blob, Bernie is past his prime, so is uncle Joe, but he may be a better match. My favorite is Warren, she is highly intellectual, I just wouldn't like to see her roll in the mud with the the sack of fat and pus.

  6. If she's already backing away and slipping out of core campaign concepts well over a year before the election even happens imagine how bought out she will be by day 1 of her presidency.

  7. 2:02 David is purposely misleading his audience by cutting off the first part of Lester Holt's question. It clearly refers to the American people who would lose their private insurance. Only a candidate not paying attention would think the question referred to them and their insurance plan, personally.

  8. Oh David, David, David. Kamala Harris is a highly intelligent woman, highly educated, who grew up in an unusually highly educated household. Language is her livelihood. She's a lawyer and a politician. Language is the air she breathes and the water she swims in. She has a crack team of campaign staffers, advisors, and consultants, and we all know good and well that they all watched and discussed the Wednesday night debate and the post-debate coverage. She went into the Thursday night debate knowing very well what questions would be asked, and was armed with talking points and one-liners, like every other candidate on that stage. She knew the question wasn't about HER health insurance. She knew, going in, that that question would be asked, and that she would raise her hand. Her job that night was to take down Biden, and benefit from that, and pose as a progressive, and benefit from that. AND she knew that–yet again–she would later walk it back in front of a much, much smaller audience.

  9. I don’t think pure medicare for all is the best solution.

    Opposition of that bring up the valid point: Government run organizations are very inefficient.

    Taking a look at other countries, some have mandatory health insurance, but the public option can be set so that corporate insurance companies will be forced to work efficiently to stay in business. Their profit will be limited but if they work efficiently they can still make a profit and stay in business.

    The big difference is that they need to squeeze the hospital and Pharma industry who charge ridiculous prices. And the insurance companies have the power to do so.

    They will finally be have the incentive to streamline administrative procedures and bring down those cost. Probably switch to an uniform system. Now they don’t care. They just charge the people more money. The majority of people working in the healthcare are ADMINISTRATIVE .. only in USA is that so because every insurance companies has their own way and that cost lots of manpower.

    in the end people will get affordable healthcare, and insurance companies will stay in business and the cost of the public option is much less than medicare for all.

  10. Will she fight for it? Will she get in the street and march for it? Will she demand it? Will we get it during her term? Will she argue that Obamacare is the same as Medicare for all? Does she understand that it won't happen unless millions of Americans stand up and demand it? Does she understand that Mitch McConnell will block her every attempt?
    I trust Bernie's stance. I don't trust Kamala's.

  11. What is that guy smoking at 3:37 ??? That 100% was the question asked. It was a dumb question, but still the question nonetheless.

  12. David I'm rather disappointed you intentionally are misleading your entire audience by EDITING OUT HALF THE QUESTION. CMON MAN WTF.

    Here is the whole question: “Many people watching at home have health insurance through their employer. Who here would abolish their private health insurance in favor of a government-run plan?” there is simply no interpretation where the 'their' isn't the 'people watching at home'. Please correct this, David please you're better than this.

  13. How is this not a flip flop?? I agree that the question could have been asked more clearly, but a similar question was asked the night before and she seems to have been the only candidate who misunderstood the question. “Abolish” isn’t really language anyone uses when discussing their personal decisions — this is pretty clearly in the realm of “what would you do as president?”. Furthermore, M4A would effectively abolish private insurance, since it makes duplicative care illegal — this has been a persistent line of “attack” against Bernie for a while now, so there’s plenty of context for the use of the term “abolish”.

    Finally, if you find yourself and Bernie as the only two people on stage raising your hand on a question related to healthcare, I think that alone should be enough of a clue as to what the question is addressing.

  14. Im not a Kamala supporter, but when that cbs asshole straight up told her she was not asked would she giver up her private insurance, but rather would she abolish it, she should have stopped right there on live television and pulled up the exact clip on her phone of the interviewer literally saying "who here would abolish THEIR PRIVATE INSURANCE IN FAVOR OF A GOVERNMENT PLAN."

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *