Zaid Jilani
https://theintercept.com/2018/07/11/shri-thanedar-michigan-single-payer-health-care/
ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ’S unexpected
victory has made it clear that the progressive movement activated by
Bernie Sanders in 2016 is far from dead.
Policies like
single-payer health care and a $15 minimum wage have become the
rallying cries of ambitious Democratic politicians, and they increasingly
find support among the general public. One poll commissioned last year found
that even a plurality of self-identified Republicans now
think that public colleges and universities should be tuition-free.
So it’s no surprise that all
manner of Democratic politicians are now rushing to portray themselves as
progressives.
In Michigan, businessperson
Shri Thanedar has spent millions of dollars on television ads casting
himself as “the most progressive Democrat running for governor,” and
promising that he would bring single-payer health care to Michigan.
“Health care is not a
privilege; it is our fundamental right. I will bring single-payer health care
to Michigan,” Thanedar says in a TV commercial. “Agree? Vote for Shri.”
But there’s reason to be
skeptical.
Over the last year,
investigations by The Intercept have revealed many facts which cast doubt
on Thanedar’s progressive branding. He donated
thousands of dollars to Sen. John McCain’s presidential
campaign, he was
spotted clapping and nodding approvingly at a Marco Rubio
presidential rally, and several Michigan political consultants have
claimed that Thanedar once consulted them about possibly running
as a Republican.
Now, an interview with The
Intercept reveals that Thanedar’s much touted single-payer health care
“plan” appears to be nonexistent.
In a conversation I had with
Thanedar this spring, the candidate made it clear that, if elected, he
would push the federal government to establish a single-payer plan. But
when asked what he would do if a national single-payer plan failed, Thanedar
struggled to offer a viable, state-level solution.
When I pressed him
on what a Michigan state single-payer system would look like, Thanedar’s answer
reflected a troubling ignorance about the difference between federal and
state programs. He replied: “I would expand the Medicare and allow people to
buy into it.”
“But Medicare is a federal
program,” I pointed out, which a governor has no authority to expand.
Moreover, even if a governor
did have that authority, Medicare expansion is not the same as single-payer
health care. The former would create a competitive, government-run
insurance option that individuals could buy into, and which, in theory, would
drive down private insurance prices. But a single-payer system entails a
government-run health system that would cover everyone automatically, like
Medicare does for seniors. Although he claimed to support a
single-payer system, Thanedar was actually describing a public option.
“It is, it is,” he conceded
when I pointed out the discrepancy.
“So what would you do in
Michigan?” I once again followed up.
“Well you know, Massachusetts
did it at the single state level, on which the Obamacare is based on. But my
commitment is there I would get together experts and make it happen and work
with that. It’s not an easy thing,” he replied. “It’s a complex thing. There are
cost issues, there are a number of other issues that need to be dealt with. But
I’m very convinced in the long run, it will save us money and it’s the right
thing to do.”
I then asked him if there
would still be private insurance under a statewide single-payer plan.
Typically, private insurance is relegated to a supplemental role in a
single-payer system.
“Again, I’m not prepared to,
you know, give you a full, you know, this is all still things to be thought
about,” he replied.
“And so you’re fine putting everybody
in Michigan into one government plan and not having private insurance in
Michigan?” I once again prodded. The answer to this question is politically
relevant, since access to private insurance options has become a stalking
horse for conservatives who oppose single-payer.
“I’m not saying that,” he
insisted.
“But that’s what single-payer
is though by definition, right?” I followed up, emphasizing the marginal
role private insurance plays in a single-payer system.
“It is. It is,” he conceded.
Finally, Thanedar concluded
that the system is complex, and explained that what he’s offering is to
provide the leadership necessary to achieve a state single-payer system
if a national plan doesn’t emerge “in a reasonable time.”
“I am for single payer. It’s a
complex system. It needs to be all worked out. We need to get experts. We need
to draft a proposal and some great number of details in it. And all of that
needs leadership and a commitment by the leadership. And I’m not coming in with
a solution to every complex problem Michigan has,” he said. “But I’m coming in
with a commitment to provide leadership.”
Thanedar has since come out in
support a plan to extend universal health care coverage to all
Michiganders under 19 years old by strengthening the state’s “Healthy
Kids” health care program, which currently provides support to certain
pregnant women and children.
Listen to the full interview
here:
When asked to comment on this
piece, Thanedar again affirmed that he would do everything in his
power to pass a national single-payer program, and explained that “if it cannot
be done at the national level, I will work tirelessly to implement a
single-payer healthcare system in Michigan with a goal to cover every
Michigander.”
ONE OF HIS opponents,
former Detroit Public Health chief Abdul El-Sayed, is also running on
establishing single-payer. But unlike Thanedar, El-Sayed has a
detailed strategy for how to accomplish it. Last month, he released a plan
to establish “Michicare,”
which would levy payroll and business taxes to establish state-funded public
coverage for all Michigan residents. El-Sayed is not shy about the fact that he
would raise taxes in order to finance the system, but he estimates
that the average Michigan family, earning an income of $48,432, would save
around $5,000 a year in costs by switching to “Michicare” from
their private health insurance provider.
Abdul El-Sayed was recently
interviewed on the Intercepted podcast about his plan to create a single-payer
health care system in Michigan, among other topics. Listen to the
segment beginning at 24:55.
But despite having a more
well-developed plan, El-Sayed’s middle-class background means he does not
have the same resources to advertise his health care plan as does
Thanedar, who, not without controversy,
made a fortune in the chemical testing industry.
As a result, there’s a real
risk that the public might be misled.
In a race where single-payer
health care has become an important campaign issue,
Thanedar’s vague, but well publicized, commitment
to single-payer may undercut El-Sayed’s campaign, and derail
the only detailed plan for a state-based single-payer program. The
most recent polling on the Michigan race has Thanedar in a statistical dead
heat with El-Sayed, with both men trailing former Senate Democratic leader
Gretchen Whitmer by
a considerable margin. The votes that Thanedar is pulling would
theoretically be enough to put El-Sayed — who has hired a stable
of Bernie Sanders alumni to run his campaign — in a competitive race
with Whitmer.
But by coopting a progressive
message and splitting the progressive vote, Thanedar has helped Whitmer,
an establishment candidate, take a comfortable lead.
Whitmer is the daughter of
former Blue Cross Blue Shield CEO Richard Whitmer. She’s the only
Democratic candidate in the race who does not back single-payer, saying that
it’s not “realistic”
in Michigan at this time. BCBS Michigan lobbyists threw
a fundraiser for Whitmer earlier this year. And she’s currently taking
heat from an unidentified group who have
paid for ads attacking her from accepting “big money” from insurance
companies.
In this context, casting
oneself as a progressive has become an important way to
distinguish oneself from establishment politicians like Whitmer, and all
the connotations of corporate corruption that come up with them — even if the
label doesn’t fit.
Already, potential 2020
candidates for the Democratic nomination have taken postures designed
to do just that. For instance, a number of senators
have pledged to stop taking corporate political action committee
money. But as several campaign finance experts explained to The
Intercept, this move is mostly a “cheap
gesture.” Many of these senators never took much corporate PAC money to
begin with — instead, they raked in the bulk of their fundraising from large
individual donors, including both corporate lobbyists and executives.
Given the increasing
marketability of “progressivism,” it’s unlikely that Thanedar will be the
last politician to don that mantle without adopting the policies to
match. As long as progressive and populist policies are well-received by
the general public, candidates for higher office have incentive to adopt
sloganeering designed to appeal to this growing portion of
the electorate. As a result, progressive voters may be
increasingly unable to take politicians’ claims of “progressivism” at
face value.
No comments:
Post a Comment