Kamala Harris’ “Medicare for all” proposal likely will not have to contend with the normal "fierce opposition" from insurance companies, the New York Times speculated Monday after the senator unveiled her healthcare plan.

The newspaper offers exactly nothing to support this almost certainly false hope.

The senator’s proposal would “allow people to choose a somewhat expanded version of traditional, government-run Medicare,” reads the Times’ report on Harris’ version of the healthcare scheme championed by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. “But by preserving a major role for private insurers — and calling for a 10-year phase-in period instead of the four-year transition that Mr. Sanders envisions — it could go a long way toward neutralizing fierce opposition from insurance companies, many of which have profited handsomely from Medicare Advantage plans.”

Based on what? Whose assessment is that?

Notably, Harris does not call for the total abolition of private health insurance, though her program would put most people on a government-run plan, the Washington Examiner’s Kimberly Leonard reports.

“The largest provision for private health insurance coverage in Harris' new plan is not through the ‘supplemental’ proposal she had alluded to before,” Leonard explains. “Instead, it would allow people to choose Medicare Advantage plans rather than traditional Medicare, which too would undergo changes in how it operates and would be allowed to cover more services.”

Though Harris’ idea is not single-payer, it is still a “public option on steroids,” as National Review contributor Pradheep Shanker put it. What good reason does the Times have to believe that Harris’ version of the Sanders deal could “go a long way toward neutralizing” opposition from insurance companies? The article never says. The claim is just the analysis of the authors, who may or may not be just a little too excited for Harris’ plan.

Also, a quick side note: By allowing the existence of private health insurance, Harris’ “Medicare for all” proposal is an about-face from January, back when the California senator's said in reference to private plans “let's eliminate all of that.”

The Times' unsubstantiated suggestion that Harris' program would largely neutralize opposition from insurance companies is not the only problem for its report. The paper's coverage also states that private insurers will play both a "limited" and "significant" role under the Harris proposal. If that is confusing for you, you are not alone.

The story on the Harris plan claims first that “Medicare for all” has become a "litmus test among the 2020 Democrats, separating the candidates of the progressive left, who want to move rapidly toward a single-payer health care system, and the more moderate contenders, who favor other ways of expanding coverage and lowering costs.” The report then states [emphasis added], “Ms. Harris’s proposal seeks to straddle both camps, using the ‘Medicare for all’ mantra as a long-term target while also seeking to keep a significant role for private insurers — which Mr. Sanders’s plan would eliminate.”

The article says also that Harris’ proposal would preserve "a major role for private insurers," adding also that it would allow people to choose an expanded version of established, government-run Medicare. Weirdly enough, one of the two authors who wrote the Times’ story, Astead Herndon, promoted the report on social media by tweeting that the “key difference” between the senator’s plan and the one championed by Sen. Bernie Sanders is that Harris’ will include a “longer phase-in period [and] maintaining limited role for private insurers [emphasis added].”

NEW: Kamala Harris announces her own Medicare-for-All proposal, seeking to separate herself from Bernie bill ahead of second debate. Key differences include longer phase-in period + maintaining limited role for private insurers. w/ @abbygoodnough https://t.co/CkQlEwqg3P — Steadman™ (@AsteadWesley) July 29, 2019

Which is it then? Limited or significant?

(h/t @wideofthepost)