Minnesota's Democratic Gov. Tim Walz, who is currently running to be the next vice president of the United States, once said in a gubernatorial debate that he supports "single-payer health care," also known as "Medicare-for-all."
Walz's stance on single-payer health care stems from his belief that "there were no protections for preexisting conditions before the ACA." He added that "a vote for the ACA was the first time in this nation's history we had those protections" and that "making sure people have that protection, making sure they were covered, and then making sure we were focused on preventative care, people were finally getting that under the ACA, we started to see health outcomes improve and that's the real key to driving down insurance premium prices."
Walz also argued that "let's be very clear" that there is "no market in health care." He explained that "markets by nature would be a failure if someone didn't have it, there's not going to be, you cannot simply shrink a pool to the sickest people and say that's where we are going to manage them when they're in crisis. That's not the way to go about this. The way to go about this is making sure everybody has that preventative care, making sure everybody has that access on the front end, you start to drive down prices. The ACA did that."
Walz's opponent, Republican Jeff Johnson, pressed him on the issue, asking, "I'm not sure what your answer was. Do you support single-payer health care?"
Walz reaffirmed his position, stating, "Yes. That was the answer I just gave you."
Johnson countered, "single-payer" means "everybody loses their insurance" and "forced on to one government plan." Walz countered, "We can do better."
These comments from Walz come under the backdrop of Vice President Kamala Harris supporting "Medicare-for-all" when she ran for president in 2019.
However, in August, her campaign claimed she will not push the subject of single-payer or "Medicare-for-all" during the campaign.
In 2019, Fox News spoke to Harris in the hallways of Capitol Hill, asking about her plans for providing health care.
Peter Doocy asked Harris on Jan. 30, 2019, "How important is it to your health care plan to get rid of private insurance companies? Because there is some confusion about that."
Harris responded, "I’m glad you asked. Yeah. So, the bottom line and the most important is that everyone have access to health care. That is the goal. That is the purpose for me supporting the policy of ‘Medicare-for-all.’"
She continued, "If Congress votes in a way that reflects the values and desires of the American people, then Congress will vote for a policy that gives everyone access to health care."
Harris proposed "Medicare-for-all" as a solution because "Medicare works" and "it’s popular."
Harris wrote, "'Medicare-for-all' will cover all medically necessary services, including emergency room visits, doctor visits, vision, dental, hearing aids, mental health, and substance-use disorder treatment, and comprehensive reproductive health care services. It will also allow the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate for lower prescription drug prices."
Fox News Digital reached out to the Harris-Walz campaign for comment but did not receive a response.
Walz's Stance Compared to Harris
The potential for clashes between Walz and Harris on health care policies is an interesting point to consider. While Harris has stated she won't push "Medicare-for-all" during the campaign, Walz's history of support for single-payer health care might suggest a potential point of divergence between the two running mates.
Walz's vocal support for single-payer health care during his 2018 gubernatorial campaign demonstrates his commitment to government-run healthcare. This stance, while potentially popular with some, may also raise concerns among those who favor private healthcare options.
As the 2024 election unfolds, it will be interesting to observe how Walz's stance on health care aligns with the broader campaign strategy and how it resonates with voters.
What's Next?
While Harris has indicated she will not push for "Medicare-for-all" during the campaign, Walz's past statements suggest a potential difference in their approaches to health care. Whether this difference becomes a point of debate or remains behind the scenes is yet to be seen.
As the election approaches, the debate surrounding health care is likely to intensify. The public will be paying close attention to how the candidates approach this critical issue and how their plans align with the needs of American voters.
