I've been busy. Normal daily blogging will continue tomorrow. Here's something quick on yesterday's health reform news-front.
Surprisingly, to me at least, the health reform bill to be introduced in the Senate will include a public option…..
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced what we've been reporting today – the merged health care bill will include a public option allowing states to opt-out.
"Under this concept states will be able to determine whether the public option works best for them," Reid told reporters. He said it was the "fairest" way to go.
The debate is just getting started….but I must say,….I didn't think a public option would be tolerated by a corporately-compromised Senate. I was incorrect in predicting that a public option would be excluded from any final legislation.
But what kind of public option will one with an opt-out provision be?
A divisive one.
What if Medicare had included an opt-out provision? Would it have been okay for conservative-voting states to have opted-out of Medicare for their states' seniors? What would Medicare look like today, how would seniors' healthcare be different today, if states would have been permitted to opt-out of Medicare?
Will this be the template for future legislation? For example: should the just-passed hate crimes legislation have included an opt-out provision for states that recoil at the thought of giving equal rights to gay Americans? If not…..why not?
While liberals consider a public option indispensable in light of Congress' refusal to even entertain the most cost efficient and universal-coverage method….single payer, government run coverage for all…..including an opt-out provision for an already limited public option, I think, will backfire.
In the age of TeaBaggers, BeckerHeads and Palin's Posse…is there any question that radicalized conservatives will pressure "red" states to "just say no" to the public option? Won't refusing the public option be proudly worn as a badge of honor by states where 57% of Republicans today think Obama is not a U.S. citizen?
Just consider the implied "secession" talk by Texas wingnut governor, Rick Perry, over the federal stimulus bill. Several "red" state governors tried to block their states from getting federal funds. With an opt-out-of-the-public-option health reform bill included in final legislation….what are the chances that the unhinged, townhall buster-upper groups will proudly opt-out?
Olympia Snowe (R-ME) will not vote for a bill with a public option even if it includes an opt-out provision….she said so. Bipartisanship, today, is similar to the existence of unicorns. Reid included the opt-out provision, I'm sure, to mollify conservative Democratic senators who want to have it both ways…..but why build-in such an opportunity for national division?
There will be a lot of discussion in the next couple of weeks about this opt-out issue. While I'm pleased, and surprised, that the final bill will include some form of public option…..with an opt-out provision, I also have serious concerns about further cracks in our national unity developing because anti-Obama, anti-Democratic states will claim victory over the evil socialists plan to destroy America.
I'm not sure how that helps the country in the long run.
{ 15 comments… read them below or add one }
"I also have serious concerns about further cracks in our national unity developing because anti-Obama, anti-Democratic states will claim victory over the evil socialists plan to destroy America."
A pretty silly statement, Reverend. Setting aside the sophomoric quality of it, how would "anti-Obama" states see throwing money into the federal coffers so folks in other states could have a public option as a victory?
I admit, that sentence was a throwaway one.
But since the reform bill will be revenue neutral, those anti-Obama states won't really be "throwing money" into it…will they?
As far as the "victory" thing…..the radical nature of the Teabag Caucus will, I think, guarantee some form of "victory over Obama" claims, if red states can opt-out of it. Those anti-Obama forces will grab that straw and make it a rallying cry about how the true patriots have fended off the dangerous Obama forces. Just my opinion….but from the last 10 months TeaBagger performances, it just seems like that would be the natural course of events. And I don't see the upside.
Opting out could be a dangerous thing for the person(people) responsible for a state opting out if the public option becomes as popular as Medicare is. It could turn out to be sure defeat in the next election for them. That's something they can think about too!
"Since the reform bill will be revenue neutral."
Chuckle.
This is nothing but a bunch of self-serving bastards making sure they make the correct decision that will assure their next re-election. What a clusterf**k this has become. I like how they are using H1N1 as the next emergency, cause for panic and diversion. Wow, just in the nick of time we have a state of emergency put out by the president, on a bill that really isn't what the country needs. If all of the states won't sign on, forget it.
Meanwhile troop deaths in Afghanistan are the highest war/military losses since 2001 and no one is talking about it. In fact the dead UCONN player and the Jon and Kate plus 8 divorce is getting more press. hhmmmm
I was listening to Cong Wasserman-Shultz on FOX today. I don't think they really know what they want to do. Nancy now has a new name for it and now they are describing totally differently than they were before.
average….don't you think we need some national health care reform? Does the H1N1 virus not exist? Is there no danger from this virus? And I disagree a bit with your comment about Afghanistan. There has been a lot of coverage of the latest violence and Obama's new soon-to-be-announced strategic plans.
San Diego raises a good point that I didn't have time to mention. Just perhaps, red state politicians who choose to opt-out of a public option will be punished by their constituencies. But many times, conservative voters vote against their own interests… right to work, tax breaks for rich, etc…..and could do so here as a show of defiance against America's new Dark Knight.
Congrats Rev.
You understnad the bottom line. Those politicans at the state level that oppose the opt-out provision will be punished. Not only does the 'free lunch" program become reality but the Dems. increase their strenght at the state level.
Maybe.
It could also give opportunity for further national division. Why provide such an opportunity? Other than fig leaf political cover for alleged moderates or bragging rights for the "just say no" crowd… there is no justification for allowing states to opt-out.
CORRECT AGAIN.–That is the game plan create as many different groups as possible then use that situation to your advantage. Rev, I am beginning to think you have read Rules For Radicals
Hell angry….I agree with 'divide and conquer.' What's wrong with that? If it was good enough for Karl Rove….then, you know.
Both parties use the divide and conquer strategy.
That doesn't make either of them right, and that's no reason to endorse it. We're supposed to be one nation.
Opt-out is a political ploy, a joke.
So, you don't stand for "states rights", either?
Your question is merely a diversion.
The reason opt-out is a joke is because all the states will still have to pay for the public option (so much for states rights), but with opt-out that state just won't receive any of the benefits. What a deal. NOT.
And how would somebody who supports single-payer health care have to nerve to ask me about states rights ? Crazy.
Single payer should be our new national threshold. This public option, opt-in, opt-out, co-op bullsh*t is just that. The federal government passes legislation that should be called the "have cake and eat it to" bill…..by trying to have health insurance and big pharma keep their profit-cake and get people to believe there's still cake for them too.
Single payer. Best efficiency and morality.