UPDATE: I just read mcjoan's front page storyand was immensely interested in this paragraph she wrote:
That said, leaving any people out of the system should be of vital concern to lawmakers. There's a relatively simple fix to that--make uninsured citizens of those states who choose to opt out eligible to enroll in Medicare. Of course, that might create huge citizen lobbies in every state to get their state to opt out so that everyone could join Medicare, but it would be critical fix for covering more of the uninsured.
That's the approach I need to feel okay with the opt-out idea. If the bill contains a legitimate, viable provision for the hapless needy people of any state stupid enough to opt out, then I'm all for it. I simple couldn't stomach the idea of most of our states tooling off in the public option limo waving "So long, suckers!" to the residents of the opting-out states.
Whenever a public debate is so hotly contested that it takes on characteristics of a bitter ideological feud, chances are that both sides will develop a growing attitude of spite. And while those on the right seem pretty comfortable with adding spite to every conversation as though it were in a shaker on the dinner table, I expect more from myself and from those on my side of the table.
Sure, sometimes I'm disappointed. I even disappoint myself occasionally. But my feelings on recent discussions of health care reform go way beyond disappointment. I think some of us are starting down a various dangerous path of thinking right now, one that would ultimately brand us as just as uncaring as those we oppose.
So let me be very clear: I reject the notion that the proposed "opt-out" public option is in any way, for anyone, an "epic win." I don't care if very few states might actually elect to opt out. I don't care if it might
completely reframe the entire debate over the public option and healthcare in general.
I have no interest in
allowing, at long last, those states with Randian ideological pedigrees to truly 'go Galt', in a head to head test of ideologies to see who comes out ahead and why.
I don't think the diarist who provided these quotes yesterday meant to be spiteful. I'm sure s/he is sincerely interested in getting the best bill possible out of the reform process, just as I'm sure s/he believes all of the analysis in the diary that suggested that allowing (red) states to opt out would
force GOP legislators to put up or shut up, leaving them in a very uncomfortable position.
But, seriously, what uncomfortable position would that be? We are, after all, talking about people who are completely comfortable with brazenly claiming that the public is overwhelmingly opposed to a public option when there is poll after poll after poll proving otherwise. What makes anyone think they feel anything but proud as they vote to opt their state out? Why would anyone think anything would
hamper the ability of Republicans to lie about healthcare issues
? If obvious, publicly available concrete evidence doesn't hamper it, nothing will.
And the argument that they will somehow be shamed as
health care costs go down around the country
assumes that costs will immediately plummet as a result of some states opting in. I think that is unreasonably optimistic. A robust public option available to anyone who needs or wants it probably have a cost-savings effect, but it would take time; a system like this takes a bankroll initially to get it up and running, and all systems have bugs to be worked out over time. And let's not even pretend that the public option we ultimately get in an arrangement like this will be robust enough to have the effect the diarist is predicting.
But even if I agreed with all of the diarist's conclusions about how an opt-in public option would affect health care prices and the image of Republicans, I would still be against it - vehemently so. It's a bad compromise, it's a bad idea, and it's decidedly NOT a progressive idea. And to embrace it for the reasons the other diarist gave - even if the diarist is completely right about them - is just plain wrong.
It's wrong not because it would leave Democrats in the red states who might opt out of the program out in the cold. It's wrong because it would leave out ANYONE who needs a public option. ANYONE. Because I didn't think we were fighting just for Democrats or just for poor people or just for poor people who are liberal. I always thought we were fighting for everyone. If we truly believe that health care is a right, then it's a right for everyone. We can't then claim that it's okay for some states to deny their residents that right, even if it would benefit us politically down the road, even if it would prove us concretely, undeniably 100% right about everything. Because in the meantime, a whole lot of people in those states would die or go bankrupt for lack of health care.
And that is just plain wrong - even if many of them are part of the wingnut base.