Medicare doesn't currently cover long-term care except in limited circumstances, and decent private coverage is almost impossible to find. That leaves Medicaid, which varies by state and requires people to impoverish themselves or transfer assets before they can qualify. Even then, it has limits on home care, often forcing people into nursing homes when they'd rather stay home.

Harris' solution is to make in-home care a regular Medicare benefit, available to all enrollees. Her campaign didn't provide a ton of detail - another reason, I suspect, the political world didn't pay a lot of attention. But the official release cited an independent study that sketched out what such a program could look like and estimated it would require about $40 billion a year in new federal spending.

Harris has suggested offsetting much of the cost with savings from another campaign proposal, one designed to reduce Medicare spending by extracting lower drug prices from manufacturers. Whether that would provide enough money and whether the fiscal tradeoffs are worthwhile are just some of the many questions Harris would have to answer if she were elected and able to pursue the proposal.

But whatever its very real pros and cons, the Harris plan represents one of the first serious, high-profile efforts to address a need that's likely to touch most families eventually, one way or another. That alone makes it worthy of more attention than it's gotten so far.

Extending Medicare services into this realm will unjokingly be a lifesaver for untold millions of caregivers and families all across America. Especially with all the aging Boomers, this policy should resonate with every generation following them. As much as it's a blessing to care for one's parents or grandparents, not everyone has the personal bandwidth to navigate the twists and turns of their own lives and take on the responsibility for a parent(s) no longer able to adequately take care of themselves on a daily basis.

It is a denigration of those who have opposing views, much as fmr Pres Trump does so often.

You're completely misconstruing what the title means. The title is shortened because of the character limit. It should read:

What Real People Get About Kamala Harris' Big New Idea That The Political Set Can't Grasp

The title is meant to speak solely to the punditry/media class, not any other particular group and certainly not the majority of citizens. And the point of the title is that this proposal is life-altering for untold millions, yet it's not received any of the focus or publicity that Trump's demented rantings about removing taxes from overtime pay or making car loan interest deductible - things that are clear panders and will never be instituted by Congress.

The author is talking about the real-world ramifications of this policy idea for all those trying to navigate the now muddled up reality of figuring out how to provide care for the elderly without 1) Being forced to pay exorbitant amounts of money to provide adequate caregiving in private facilities - often expending whatever wealth the cared-for have accumulated, or paying for the care out of their own pockets if able to; 2) Try to provide caregiving in their own homes and/or the cared-for's home by paying for outside agencies to assist at least part time; 3) Wait until all the cared-for's life savings and wealth have been exhausted, at which time they may qualify for Medicaid assistance for long term care; none of which are particularly appetizing for most families dealing with these issues.

Lamp, you've been here long enough to know to check the linked article first if the posted title raises questions. I'm open if you've got an alternate title that at minimum provides a gist of what the article is about within 60 characters. I did the best I could.

How many "real people" have the problems being described Tony? I know of no one having this issue.

That helps explain a lot about you, namely your ignorance on this topic and your seeming lack of understanding the struggles of others who aren't you.

The larger point is that caregiving is one of the ONLY issues Democrats, Republicans, and every other political or ideological persuasion are affected by the same. There is no ideological differences at issue with the need for caregiving.

With cost being the biggest impediment to any increase in government expenditures, if a funding mechanism can be agreed upon, there is no constituency in America that would not back this proposal on its face. Everyone has aging parents or relatives who'll need care services as they age, and as shown statistically above, American employers also pay when workers have to miss work because they're providing needed caregiving for loved ones.