‘We can’t only look at this issue in terms of cost without thinking about benefit…’
(Claire Russel, Liberty Headlines) Presidential hopeful Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., continues to flip–flop on healthcare, claiming that while she favors Medicare for All, she opposes paying for it with increased taxes on the middle class.
“Part of it is going to be about Wall Street paying more,” Harris told CNN. “It’s going to be about what we tax in terms of financial services.”
Taxing financial services would, of course, trickle down in added costs to the customers and businesses who use those services, ultimately resulting in price increases for consumers of goods.
But Harris claimed socialized healthcare program would reap even greater dividends in cost savings for many.
“The other part is to understand this is about an investment that will reap a great return on the investment,” she said.
“We can’t only look at this issue in terms of cost without thinking about benefit,” she continued. “The benefit to the American public will be that people will have access to healthcare that right now they cannot afford. And we are all paying a price for that.”
A system based on a Medicare for All policy would also require raised taxes—regardless of Harris’s claims to the contrary.
Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.—the original author of the bill, which Harris cosponsors—admitted that this plan would raise taxes for wealthy and middle-lass Americans.
“How do you think we … Health care is not free,” Sanders told The Washington Post on Tuesday. “Now, we pay for health care in a variety of ways, pretty complicated. About half of health care dollars, more or less, comes from taxes.”
The entire plan would cost about $40 trillion over a 10 year period if implemented completely.
Harris has said she supports the plan but continues to provide mixed answers when asked about its implementation.
She’s likely trying to appeal to voters on both sides of the issue, appeasing the far leftists who want socialized healthcare while acting like she understands middle-class Americans.
Regardless of her indecisiveness, she claimed her plan would be better than the current system, which she said is unaffordable and inefficient.
“It is extremely expensive for the American taxpayer,” Harris said. “And also it’s a system that basically means that people have access to health care when they’re in crisis. A smart system will not require people to be in crisis before they have access to health care.”