Democrats discuss Medicare for All legislation on Capitol Hill last year. Photo: Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images

Let’s jump into the debate Democrats are going to be having for at least the next two years: What, exactly, constitutes “Medicare for All”?

Why it matters: Supporting some version of “Medicare for All” has become a litmus test for a lot of Democratic primaries in 2018, and will surely be one in 2020.

What they’re saying: Tim Higginbotham and Chris Middleman, organizers with the Democratic Socialists of America’s Medicare for All campaign, pushed back against the squishier definitions of the term in a Vox op-ed on Friday.

  • “We need a true single-payer system, not a patchwork … effectively abolishing the private health insurance industry altogether.”
  • That single program should cover everyone, should provide services like mental and dental health, and should be free at the point of service (no co-pays or deductibles), they said.

The other side: Try writing, for example, a health policy newsletter that treats “Medicare for All” and “single-payer” as synonyms, and you’ll hear from the Democrats who support a less sweeping program, like an optional Medicare buy-in.

  • Medicare, they accurately note, relies heavily on private insurance. Why should “Medicare for All” have to mean pure single-payer when that’s not what Medicare is today?

My thought bubble: Hardly anyone is actually talking about a literal expansion of the existing Medicare program, whether voluntary or compulsory.

  • Medicare today doesn't meet the definition DSA has laid out. Neither does Canada's single-payer system, for that matter. Medicare also doesn't cover things like maternity care, which more center-left proposals would change.
  • If this ever gets resolved, it will be during the 2020 primary at the earliest — not in 2018, when a raft of Democratic candidates across the center-left spectrum truly are benefitting from the term’s vague popularity.

Go deeper

Americans reflect on Independence Day amid racism reckoning

A Black Lives Matter banner and a United States flag on the facade of the U.S. embassy building in Seoul, South Korea. Photo: Simon Shin/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

America's leaders are rethinking how they view Independence Day, as the country reckons with the historic, unequal treatment of people of color during a pandemic which has disproportionately affected nonwhite Americans.

Why it matters: The country’s legacy of racism has come into sharp focus in the weeks of protests following the death of George Floyd while in Minneapolis police custody. From Confederate statues to Mount Rushmore, Americans are reexamining the symbols and traditions they elevate and the history behind them.

Updated 6 hours ago - Politics & Policy

Coronavirus dashboard

Illustration: Aïda Amer/Axios

  1. Global: Total confirmed cases as of 7 p.m. ET: 11,031,905 — Total deaths: 523,777 — Total recoveries — 5,834,337Map.
  2. U.S.: Total confirmed cases as of 7 p.m. ET: 2,788,395 — Total deaths: 129,306 — Total recoveries: 790,404 — Total tested: 34,213,497Map.
  3. States: ICU beds in Arizona's hot spot reach near capacity.
  4. Public health: The states where face coverings are mandatory Fauci says it has been a "very disturbing week" for the spread of the coronavirus in the U.S.
  5. Economy: The economy may recover just quickly enough to kill political interest in more stimulus.
8 hours ago - Sports

Washington Redskins to review team name amid public pressure

Photo: Patrick McDermott/Getty Images

The Washington Redskins have announced they will be conducting a review of the team's name after mounting pressure from the public and corporate sponsors.

Why it matters: This review is the first formal step the Redskins are taking since the debate surrounding the name first began. It comes after weeks of discussions between the team and the NFL, the team said.