If “universal health care” meant covering everyone except for maybe 10-15 million people, then Kilmer could say he fights for universal health care. But it doesn’t. So he shouldn’t. U.S. House of Representatives
If I could banish one term from politics it would be “universal health care.” Too often, business Democrats deploy the phrase to trick voters into believing they support health care plans that cover every American resident, when in reality they do not.
That’s exactly how Washington U.S. House Rep. Derek Kilmer uses the term in his somewhat misleading but admirably socially distant ad: After the camera cautiously approaches Kilmer, the four-term ivy-league incumbent from Gig Harbor says, “Folks shouldn’t have to choose between their health or their paycheck…That’s why I fight for universal health care, and making coronavirus treatment free.”
The casual observer could be forgiven for thinking that “fighting for universal health care” means supporting Medicare for All, a plan that truly offers universal coverage, but they’d be wrong.
At a town hall last year, Kilmer said he wouldn’t sign onto Seattle Rep. Pramila Jayapal’s Medicare for All bill because he couldn’t with certainty “look you in the eye and say, ‘We will replace your employer-provided health […]
read more here —> www.thestranger.com