Dem presidential candidate wants to "eliminate all private health insurance"--triggers firestorm, retreats a bit...maybe
Two days ago senator (and Dem presidential candidate) Kamala Harris said she wanted to eliminate all private health insurance and replace it with "Medicare for all"--i.e. government running all health care.
You read that right. She wants that because she sees that the gruberment has done such a fantastic job with the VA system. (That's sarc, in case anyone didn't recognize it.)
Not surprisingly, her proposal triggered a firestorm of criticism--some of it from fellow Dems.
The heat was so intense that less than a day later her press secretary appeared to walk back her statement, saying Harris is "willing to back health insurance proposals that would not eliminate private health insurance."
“Medicare-for-all is the plan that she believes will solve the problem and get all Americans covered," the press secretary told CNN . “She has co-sponsored other pieces of legislation that she sees as a path to getting us there, but this is the plan she is running on.”
Wait...what? The first part of the lackey's statement--that Harris is "willing to back proposals that would not eliminate private health insurance"--sounds like she's backing off her "eliminate all private insurance" statement. But then the rest of the lackey's statement--"But this is the plan she's running on"--indicates she really does want to eliminate all private health insurance--which would have to be replaced by government taking over all health care.
For young or naive readers, this is known as "having it both ways." It's damage control, seeking to appear as though candidate Harris has "seen the light" and repudiated a truly dumb proposal--but then later stands by the original socialist proposal to keep low-information voters happy.
In other words, the campaign can point to whichever half of the statement will win the votes of the group she's speaking to at the moment.
Is that cunning or what?
If it strikes you as unlikely that she'd be so...duplicitous...here's the link.
You read that right. She wants that because she sees that the gruberment has done such a fantastic job with the VA system. (That's sarc, in case anyone didn't recognize it.)
Not surprisingly, her proposal triggered a firestorm of criticism--some of it from fellow Dems.
The heat was so intense that less than a day later her press secretary appeared to walk back her statement, saying Harris is "willing to back health insurance proposals that would not eliminate private health insurance."
“Medicare-for-all is the plan that she believes will solve the problem and get all Americans covered," the press secretary told CNN . “She has co-sponsored other pieces of legislation that she sees as a path to getting us there, but this is the plan she is running on.”
Wait...what? The first part of the lackey's statement--that Harris is "willing to back proposals that would not eliminate private health insurance"--sounds like she's backing off her "eliminate all private insurance" statement. But then the rest of the lackey's statement--"But this is the plan she's running on"--indicates she really does want to eliminate all private health insurance--which would have to be replaced by government taking over all health care.
In other words, the campaign can point to whichever half of the statement will win the votes of the group she's speaking to at the moment.
Is that cunning or what?
If it strikes you as unlikely that she'd be so...duplicitous...here's the link.
posted by SF at
12:35 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home