...in previous posts (for example,
here), I tried to emphasize that it was not Kamala Harris who put forward the negative framing of M4A, but Jake Tapper. In her direct response to Tapper, Kamala Harris attempted a brief (rather too brief, but then again her combination of brevity and nonchalance -- "...Ms. Harris breezily acknowledged...", the
NYT wrote, in its account of the event --
arguably gave her answer the appearance of technocratic authoritativeness, as opposed to merely emotional/irrational/ideological fixation/obstinacy) 'positive reframing' of Tapper's talking point, in which she focused on positive outcomes; predictably, it was only Jake Tapper's inflammatory talking point (not Harris's 'positive reframing' of the talking point) that was repeated in press coverage of the issue, but more importantly, there was no sustained attempt at 'positive reframing' (of the type that Kamala Harris offered at the event itself) to counter the repetition of the negative talking point (in the subsequent coverage of the event).
In other words, as Kirblar and others have pointed out many times (and I have mentioned in the past, for example
here), even Bernie would sign ACA 2.0 or similar incremental improvements, so it's not a problem that Harris's team said they are open to incremental reform. From the point of view of an M4A advocate, the only 'problem' would be the lack of sustained attempts at 'positive reframing':
https://twitter.com/PNHP/status/1093974578722938883
https://twitter.com/awgaffney/status/1095825129752408066
Also, private insurance is
technically NOT excluded under the Senate M4A bill (as mentioned
here), but the relevant part of the bill (Section 107,
here) may be too restrictive, as Jon Walker frequently argues (see
here and
here and
here, for example). If the rich or some employers want to pay for high-end 'duplicative' plans which hypothetically offered the same 'benefits' (the term used in Section 107) as M4A, but perhaps also offered higher compensation for providers (for those providers that might choose to opt out of M4A participation due to insistence on higher-end compensation, for example), then that may be a worthwhile concession to make (from the point of view of M4A advocates), in a political cost-benefit analysis.
