16 March 2020 — 0949 mdt
Biden again trashes single payer health care
Biden, Sanders, promise that gender identity will be
their most important consideration in choosing a VP
After an hour of last night’s Democratic debate, I switched it off. The tone was far too strident for the times. Sanders and Biden stood behind glitzy lecterns while they were interrogated by three moderators hellbent on inciting conflict to goose TV ratings. It was a setting for shouting, not for the kind of measured, thoughtful, discussion we need during the coronavirus crisis.
The candidates should have been sitting a table in a quiet room with subdued lighting, the discussion led by someone with the interviewing skills of Bill Moyers. I finished reading a novel. This morning, I read the debate’s transcript.
For me, the principal takeaways were Biden’s steadfast opposition to the concept of single-payer health care, and both men’s willingness to play gender identity politics with the vice presidency.
Biden and single-payer
Last week there were reports that Biden, in a 9 March interview on MSNBC, said he would veto a bill establishing Medicare for All. According to Politifact:
Biden’s response on MSNBC was not as definitive as the post made it seem.
Biden replied that he “would veto anything that delays providing the security and the certainty of health care being available now.” He said if it passed, he would want to look at the costs and the impact on the budget and taxes for the middle class.
To put it another way, Biden only had critical words when asked about Medicare for All, but he didn’t bluntly state he would veto it.
The statement is partially accurate but takes things out of context. We rate this statement Half True.
During the debate, Biden seized every opportunity to denigrate single payer health care. He clearly opposes the concept. I think I know why.
The day of the debate, I entered in my private journal a short comment on the report that Biden might veto a Medicare for All bill.
Whether Biden would veto Medicare for All may be the question in tonight’s debate that decides whether Sanders’ supporters will opt for Biden instead of Trump, someone else, or not voting.
What’s not being discussed is the fact that some unions have huge Taft-Hartly health plans that pay the plans’ trustees, who include union leaders, six-figure salaries. M4A would eliminate those health plans and that gravy train. This is why the establishment wing of the Democratic Party, which is all too cozy with some of the disreputable elements of organized labor, which is still heavily mobbed-up, is cool to M4A.
Biden is trying to finesse the situation by appeasing the unions with his concern about the cost of M4A, a bogus concern, and appeasing progressives with his grudging embrace of health care as a right. But the key issue isn’t the cost of M4A, which actually would save the nation money. The key issue is the cost to union bosses who are loading their wallets with their take from serving as trustees for union health care funds. I think those union bosses would prefer four more years of Trump to M4A.
The reality of organized labor is much grimier than the idealized image of solidarity forever, and the indomitable, incorruptible, union maid. Dave Beck and Jimmy Hoffa seem closer to the norm. Even today major unions such as the United Auto Workers are under federal scrutiny for corruption. Biden so badly wants to be president that he may be willing to sell single payer health care down the river to secure the support of unsavory union bosses.
Identity politics and the vice presidency
Biden and Sanders are in their late seventies. There’s a disconcertingly high probability that the vice president of men that old may become president before the end of the president’s first term. Indeed, it’s far from inconceivable that the VP nominee could become the presidential nominee if the nominee dies of, or is irretrievably incapacitated by, the corona virus. Biden and Sanders are elderly, and no matter how far they attempt retreating into a bubble, are at high risk of being exposed to, and infected with the virus.
Therefore, they’re morally obligated to choose as vice president someone a generation younger who has extensive experience in high elective office; someone who can step into the presidency or nomination seamlessly and who has the resume and personality to reassure the nation in a time of crisis.
Three men who could step in seamlessly as president or the nominee immediately come to mind: Gov. Gavin Newsome of California; Mitch Landrieu, former mayor of New Orleans and former lieutenant governor of Lousiana; and Gov. Steve Bullock of Montana. Gov. Andrew Como of New York, a politician I do not like, might be a fourth possibility.
Biden, who plans to live forever, doesn’t see it that way. His highest priority in a vice president is someone who can help him win the primary and turn out Democrats. So when opportunity presented itself last night, he blurted that he would choose a woman for vice president, and to underscore his commitment to identity politics, also promised to appoint a black woman to the courts. Gender and color first, competence second.
Here’s what was said:
BASH: Welcome back to the CNN-Univision Democratic presidential debate, live from Washington, D.C. And as we noted, Arizona will vote on Tuesday. We solicited questions from undecided Democratic voters there. One is from Amy Langenfeld, who is a law professor from Chandler, Arizona, with a question for Senator Sanders.
QUESTION: Women are the canaries in the coalmine of the conservative agenda. Our access to health care is at risk from the Federalist Society’s remaking of the courts. Our lives are threatened by abusive partners’ access to guns. Women are disproportionately affected by bail requirements (ph), Social Security cuts, and cuts to public education. How will your cabinet ensure the best advice on issues that affect women’s physical and financial health? Thank you.
SANDERS: My cabinet, my administration will look like America. Last I heard, over half of the people in America are women. And that will be the representation in my cabinet and my administration.
♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
BASH: Vice President Biden?
BIDEN: Am I able to respond to that?
BASH: Please.
BIDEN: Yes, thank you. Number one, I agree with — with the question of the — the underlying premise of Amy’s question. Number one, I committed that if I’m elected president, have an opportunity to appoint someone to the courts, will be — I’ll appoint the first black woman to the courts. It’s required that they have representation now. It’s long overdue.
Secondly, if I’m elected president, my — my cabinet, my administration will look like the country. And I commit that I will, in fact, appoint a — I’ll pick a woman to be vice president. There are a number of women who are qualified to be president tomorrow. I would pick a woman to be my vice president.
♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
BASH: Mr. Vice President, if I could just follow up, just to be clear, you just committed here tonight that your running mate, if you get the nomination, will be a woman?
BIDEN: Yes.
BASH: Senator, just to be clear, the vice president committed to picking a woman as his running mate. If you get the nomination, will you?
SANDERS: In all likelihood, I will. For me, it’s not just nominating a woman, it is making sure that we have a progressive woman and there are progressive women out there. So my very strong tendency is to move in that direction.
There are Democrats who believe their party should nominate a woman to prove a point. But when Democrats had the opportunity to vote for a woman, their votes mostly went to men. I suspect that’s because in time of crisis, our species looks to father figures for leadership. See my post on the findings from the 2018 Pew survey on women and leadership. Biden’s committing himself to running with a woman was a tactical and strategic blunder.