Those advocating moving all Americans onto a single government plan under the banner "Medicare for all" are creating a lot more work for themselves if the goal is actually to guarantee all Americans are able to obtain affordable health coverage.
I'm not arguing this from a 2020 election outcome perspective, but from a purely policy perspective.
In what may prove the most significant moment of Wednesday night's Democratic debate, Sen, Elizabeth Warren gave an unequivocal endorsement of eliminating private insurance that currently covers nearly 180 million people.
I noted the potential political risks of the strategy, as did traditional liberal Jonathan Chait, who wrote, "Warren ventured boldly, perhaps foolishly, onto a shaky limb. She may have just filmed the most effective attack ad against herself." Crooked's Brian Beutler, who is more sympathetic with the resurgent Left's view on this, countered that Republicans "will run ads insisting the Democratic agenda will cause everyone to lose their plans, homes freedoms no matter what it is."
It may surprise people, but I actually get where Beutler is coming from. During the Obamacare repeal debate, I made a structurally similar argument that Democrats would portray Republicans as ripping away healthcare from people no matter what, so they may as well defend actual free market solutions that would bring down costs. So I get that impulse, and to be perfectly honest, I also am not convinced that Warren's draconian position will be fatal to her presidential ambitions. Given President Trump's unpopularity, any Democrat starts out with a decent chance of winning a general election against him. Add in his uncharacteristic style, and it's also unclear what the general election would actually be about. If Warren is the nominee, we could be spending next year debating Pocahontas memes.