Vox’s Dylan Scott writes that the Democratic debate over Medicare for All boils down to two core disagreements:
“One is on the policy: Would the best insurance system be one fully funded by the federal government? The Democrats who support Sen. Bernie Sanders’s Medicare-for-all bill are saying it is, while other candidates prefer to build more gradually on the public-private system we have now or openly running against the idea of single-payer.
“The other debate is over strategy: Even if Democrats are lucky enough to win full control of the government in 2020, which is by no means guaranteed, should they try to enact another major health care overhaul? Or should they use their time, energy, attention, and political capital for other pursuits?”
Scott breaks down the key differences between the various legislative proposals and think-tank plans, and if you want a sense of how leading Democratic presidential candidate, his piece is worth a read.
But, as the Democratic debates continue and the 2020 campaign unfolds, another of Scott’s points is also worth keeping in mind: Democrats will likely need to win the Senate for any major health-care reform push to succeed, and the size of a Democratic majority in that chamber may well determine the political viability of Medicare for All or other plans. In other words, “there’s also a large chance this could all be moot.”