By Dan Walters, CalMatters
As California’s voters receive their primary election ballots and began returning them in to be counted, the seven leading candidates for governor on Tuesday night engaged in an occasionally slashing, two-hour debate that reflected a race that’s too close to call.
The event, staged by CNN in Monterey Park, differed from past forums with a looser format that allowed the five Democrats and two Republicans to chime in on a series of contentious issues and hurl personal zingers at each other.
In other words, it was more like a real debate rather than a glorified panel discussion, and allowed watchers throughout the nation, as well as Californians, to gauge how they handled themselves under stress.
The pecking order was obvious, with Xavier Becerra, the former attorney general and Biden cabinet member, a frequent target of candidates of both parties. He saw a sudden rise in the polls after former Rep. Eric Swalwell’s campaign imploded amid accusations of sexual harassment and assault.
Before Swalwell exited, Becerra was mired in the second tier of the field, with low, single-digit support in the polls. He has since jumped into the upper tier, and in the latest Democratic Party poll released this week, was tied with Republican Steve Hilton for first place.
Becerra’s leap over billionaire Tom Steyer, has sparked a series of anti-Becerra media spots and news releases from Steyer. They cite a scandal in which campaign aides to Becerra have been accused of diverting money from one of his accounts and raise allegations that he lost track of millions of migrant children when serving as health and welfare secretary.
Known for a quiet demeanor, Becerra displayed a more animated side of his persona in response to the critical comments, saying at one point that ”everyone is evoking my name” as he insisted that he was a victim in the campaign fund case and that the “lost kids” critique was untrue.
Some of the sharpest shots at Becerra came from former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who stands at just 2% in the latest party poll, reflecting a long-time rivalry dating from Villaraigosa’s mayoralty and Becerra’s time as a Los Angeles congressman.
Nothing that happened Tuesday night, as the candidates talked about living costs, gasoline prices, homelessness, immigration and other issues, appeared to be a game-changer.
The differences among Democrats on the points posed by the two CNN moderators were not especially wide. All of the candidates boasted of their disdain for President Donald Trump and vowed to protect California from his wrath, which is standard Democratic rhetoric these days.
There was a little dustup over single-payer health care — reflecting the primacy of that issue among progressive activists. Steyer, who portrays himself as the most progressive candidate and boasts of support from the California Nurses Association, the major promoter of a single-payer system, chided Becerra for allegedly declaring opposition to single-payer to gain an endorsement from the California Medical Association, saying the CMA “maxed out for Becerra.”
Becerra refused to endorse single-payer, while saying he backs “Medicare for all” as an answer to disparities in health care. Porter was the only other Democrat to unreservedly endorse a single-payer system.
The two Republicans, Hilton and Riverside Sheriff Chad Bianco, pretty much stuck to the standard GOP line that California’s long list of issues — such as high poverty, unemployment, housing shortages and high living costs — should be blamed on Democratic control of the state’s government and can be fixed only by electing one of them as governor.
That’s virtually impossible unless they finish 1-2 in the June 2 primary and thus both appear on the November ballot. Democratic leaders were worried about that possibility, but as the field has sorted itself lately, one Republican might get into the run-off. Given California’s voter demographics, the Democrat who survives will almost certainly be the next governor.
Bianco is a pathetic joke.
Currently, Medicare is funded primarily through payroll taxes during your working life:
Standard Rate: Employers and employees each pay 1.45% (totaling 2.9%).
High Earners: Those making over $200,000 pay an additional 0.9% surtax.
Lifetime Contribution: For an average earner over a 40-year career, this results in a total contribution of roughly $172,000 to $180,000 (excluding any interest or growth).
Turning 65 doesn’t mean healthcare becomes free; it simply shifts from a tax to a monthly premium model:
Part B (Medical): A base premium of approximately $202.90/month, which scales upward for those earning over $109,000 annually.
The “Gap” Coverage: Because Medicare typically only covers about 80% of costs, most seniors add:
Medigap: $110–$275/month.
Part D (Prescriptions): $49–$126/month.
Total Monthly Out-of-Pocket: * Average Earners: $387–$417/month.
High Earners: $1,000+/month.
The Big Questions for “Medicare for All”
If the United States were to transition everyone to this system tomorrow, several massive logistical hurdles arise:
The Entry Fee: Would new participants (who haven’t paid the 40-year payroll tax) be required to pay a “buy-in” fee of hundreds of thousands of dollars, or would their monthly premiums be significantly higher to compensate?
Funding Shifts: If the 40-year pay-in period is eliminated, would the payroll tax be increased substantially for everyone to cover the immediate costs of the entire population?
Cost Comparison: When you combine 40 years of taxes with 20+ years of premiums and supplemental insurance, is the “all-in” cost of Medicare actually lower than private insurance? I doubt it very much.
You doubt it because your innumeracy and slavish political blinders prevent you from looking at the data.
Single payer works, as amply demonstrated by numerous countries that have healthcare that is both better and less costly that it is here.
Medicare is NOT single payer. The government through taxes and fees cover the base cost and insurance companies provide plans for the gap and drugs.
Perhaps you need to educate yourself on this subject.
Yes, and that’s the problem. Involving for profit insurance companies guarantees costlier service and denial of needed care.
And, as usual, you have an error in grammar. Perhaps you need a basic education on communicating in English.
So it sounds like you are asking the question because you’re in favor of keeping our present regime of private insurance companies. Really? I don’t see how any rational person can support the current system. Just because it wouldn’t be easy doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be worth it. Your math leaves out a lot, of course, such as how much of our premiums went not to health care but administrative bloat and CEO compensation? How much damage to our fellow citizens’ health can be directly attributed to the arbitrary denials of coverage, or from insurance execs telling doctors how to practice medicine? “Medical bankruptcy” is a uniquely American phrase, causing homelessness, family breakup, and enormous costs for everyone, and health insurance companies are directly responsible. The most obvious factor missing from your math is that health care is this expensive BECAUSE of the meaningless interference of health insurance companies, without any question.
But leaving the cost issue aside, which is virtually incalculable since “40 years of taxes” would render moot any comparison, I will say that as a consumer Medicare is far and away a better insurance arrangement than ANY private insurer’s deal. Not only is it cheaper, it is more efficient (far less waste and fraud-from-profit), more transparent, and less corrupt than private insurers.
But of course there would be hurdles and it would be years before a shift to a single payer system was fully implemented and working efficiently. So what. It’s for the next generation and the ones after that, and it would be totally worth the effort to change.