Slinkerwink has a powerful video up at Daily Kos on the abominable Tom Carper "compromise" that lets states opt-out of a public option, and what it would mean to the poor in her home state of Texas. I skimmed the comments and I shake my head. I haven’t heard such cold-heartedness toward those who are perceived as "undeserving" for having the temerity to live in a state run by Republicans since Reagan launched his war on welfare queens.
The plan is endorsed by Richard Kirsch, the HCAN director and all-around teabagger sage who on August 13 uttered those famous words, "We are absolutely surprised at the way that the right focused so much on this as soon as August began." Carper, as many will remember, is the guy who said it was the Finance Committee’s job to honor sweetheart deals that the White House cut with PhRMA, which forbids the government from negotiating for prescription drug prices.
That really ought to be all that anybody needs to know about how wrong-headed the "opt out" plan is, but apparently not.
The fact that anyone is taking this seriously this morning, or celebrating the fact that "red" states will opt out and screw themselves, is the price we pay for having talked about the health care debate in purely political terms. It’s something that has concerned me a great deal of late, and I’m more guilty than most. Yes, it’s necessary to discuss politics, and it’s what I personally do, but Eve Gittelson, my partner in this fight, has always been the moral heart of the campaign — and she always brings it back to the human side. Without that, we’re lost. Health care is a civil right. This is a matter of right and wrong, and it’s our moral obligation to heal the sick and leave no one behind. Eve always remembers that.
It’s time we got back to that.
I’ve been talking with Marshall Ganz lately, who trained the field organizers for the Obama campaign. We’ve been talking about reclaiming the health care battle and our Public Option Please campaign, which launches today, attempts to reframe the health care debate around moral, human terms. If ever there was a demonstration of how badly this was needed, the cold-blooded, politically "convenient" response to the Carper plan is it.
Sadly, I do tend to think in political terms, and will continue to do so. But that has its value, too. So, before we go to the moral high ground later today with POP, let’s spend a minute on the moral low ground.
Fuck that Carper noise and anyone from the veal pen who tries to sell it. Let them eat cake:
1) Call Atlantic Philanthropies, which has funded $25 million in HCAN ads, and ask them why a Bermuda- based company is running partisan political attack ads in the US. As a foreign company they can’t engage in political activity, and if you go and count the number of attack ads HCAN has run, you’ll find they are all against Republicans. Atlantic got slammed for the same thing during the immigration fight. And no, I do not find those soft-ball ads telling Baron Hill how wonderful it would be to have health care compelling, and neither will the FEC. Ask Atlantic when they became an arm of the DNC. For that matter, ask the Robert Woods Johnson Foundation, too. Make Rahm spend a day trying to save their tax status. Let them know we’ll be revisiting this every time Richard Kirsch (or HCAN or any of their affiliated organizations — CAF, USAction, their employees, consultants, assignees or "fellows") is out there trying to torpedo everything that’s been won. Because let’s face it, nobody would be offering up a marginally less-worse compromise unless they had to. They’re stuck. They’re sweating. That’s a good thing. Let them stay there. Only a nitwit or a hack would throw them a life preserver.
2) Call members of Congress who signed the letter saying they would vote against any health care bill that doesn’t have a public option tied to Medicare rates. Because you know what? The one that the Speaker is pushing doesn’t. So, that threshold has been met. Lynn Woolsey says they have 208 votes for Medicare +5, and that’s without leadership saying that they support it. They’re right at the door step of the 218 needed for passage, so Pelosi can stop with the bullshit about not enough support. She’s the one who said Medicare rates would save $85 billion. When did fulfilling the White House’s deals with the AMA and the hospitals move to the top of her list of priorities?
And go say "hi" to Eve on her POP diary this morning. As I said, we’ll have more later. But this is where this battle has to go in order for it to become a movement that can achieve universal health care, not just a short-term political battle. Her heart, and the heart of those who are willing to get arrested because they believe passionately in social justice for all, is the thing that will carry us to victory in the battle for universal health care.




129 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
Hi Jane, as always you’re way too kind. But the idea that we cannot lose the human face of this catastrophe as we focus on the political, is so important.
This is one reason why I think Keith Olbermann’s initiatve, to sham these fucking conservadem scumbags (Lincoln, Nelson, Reid, Baucus, and a few others, he mentioned last night) with massive health clinics in the capital cities of their states, could be so damn important.
Sorry, but the phrase “Richard Kirsch, the HCAN director and all-around teabagger sage” confuses me.
HCAN director and teabagger sage as an epithet seems odd.
Isn’t HCAN the same Health Care for American NOW! that has ads all over the country pouncing on anything short of a public option?
Jane ! Eve !
Have you seen this segment of Rachel’s show last night ? – DKos
I’m using this, from now on – Harry “I cave at the office” Reid
If the plan is done properly, no state will opt out. Just like the stimulus money, those Red state governors who cried loudest against it will be first in line to sign up for the money.
If not, it just means a few more blue governors in the next election. They are smart enough to know that. I’m not saying I love the compromise, but if it’s the only way to get a public option past a cloture vote I’ll support it.
The proposal is unworkable. Its primary value is as another stall tactic in the Senate Finance Committee.
And it is sad how often progressives want to cut loose folks like those in my state (which by scraping and clawing at least has a nominal Democratic majority) while they coast in the illusion that their “Blue” states are immune from opting out.
If I had to guess which states would opt out if the opportunity were provided today, it would be California, Texas, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and some others that are having serious budget problems. (In Texas the budget priorities are the problem.) Because the proposal involves some sort of state plans, state regulations, or state exchanges in order to operate. Or can you imagine a national exchange that asks you what state your are in and then delivers the information available for the plans in that state, which might be worse deals than the ones in a state that has not opted out of a public plan.
It is morally despicable, politically poison, administratively unworkable, and expensive to the federal budget.
PETITION TO SENATE MAJORITY LEADER HARRY REID:
“Any Democratic senators who support a Republican attempt to block a vote on health care reform should be stripped of their leadership titles. Americans deserve a clean up-or-down vote on health care.”
See the clip of Rachel breaking the news and SIGN the petition !
Thanks to the PCCC for sending out emails with a link to this petition.
Petition here: http://boldprogressives.org/majorityvote/p-e1
And here: http://boldprogressives.org/majorityvote/p-e-typ
thank you for this and for the words “universal health care.” the 17 million (or whatever the latest numbers are) left behind by the house bill are a moral outrage too. and probably more of a human tragedy than an opt out for texas.
Good Morning Jane, Eve, and Firedogs,
I was just over there and was coming over here with the idea of posting Slink’s vid.
Eve – was very excited to read about POP – Eve, Jane, and Marcy comin to get cha !
– that’s our fucking cake, I’m on the phone awready
Tea Baggers want Americans to pay more for drugs than Canada and Mexico? We need to highlight this we need to confront a tea bagger with this on tv and have quotes ready. The Tea Baggers have strong American First tendencies this won’t play with them.
Good post, Jane. The opt-out seems immoral, for it punishes many southerners, perhaps overwhelming black, who will be without a public option because they live in the wrong state.
Bring it back to right and wrong.
Yes, Keith was absolutely right on that. Opt-in/opt-out is a distraction.
By the way, thanks for slinkerwink for getting her video out so fast and showing the way on this.
I completely lost it over that last night – comment after comment (not here) snarkin’ and yukkin it up about the “rubes” & “rednecks” – sounded so much like Malkinites tittering away about Katrina victims. all lmao, all the time
It seems to me that there are two different ”state option” possibilities under discussion. One is the Carper idea, which I fully agree is a loser. The other was mentioned by Sam Stein on the Ed Show, and is discussed by mcjoan in a post on dKos yesterday. The second one, with no name attached, apparently envisions a robust public option in the act, with a provision that allows individual states to opt out. The more I think of it, the better I like that one. It presents the same delimma to red states as did the stimulus package, interstate highways transportation acts, and a host of others.
I live in Texas, under ”Secesh” Perry, and it seems to me that those which didn’t come around immediately would eventually, and it would be of their own volition. I’m not cruel, but would really like to see the teabag crowd have to put their money where there mouths are and I’m willing to live under the consequences with eventual good in mind.
I think we need to bring the bible into this to win Red Staters Bible Quotes the Good Samaritian Story, that which you do to the least of my brothers is that which you do onto me.
Give up all of your goods if you would follow me.
Yep, I was one of those commentors at Kos who was appalled by the very idea of the “opt out” plan. Unfortunately, I can’t say that I am at all surprised by the attitudes of some blue state residents. As a Texan, I seem to always be held responsible for the wingnuttery in this state, no matter how much money I give to progressives, no matter how much I volunteer to progressive causes and no matter how much I support national progressive causes. The ugly truth is that there is far too much inclination to throw progressives in red states under the bus. There are more progressives living in Texas than any three New England states combined except New York but because we have a ridiculous cartoon for a governor, we are apparently just political road kill to so many “progressives” in blue states. I never thought of “I got mine” as a progressive value to be honest but apparently I would be mistaken.
That is why they want to rewrite the bible – it is just to librul ya know.
Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma and many more states will see a mass exodus if they refuse the public option while other states accept it. Not only the working class, but the entrepreneurs who depend on them, will go to those states where the public option is available.
These Republican controlled state legislatures have proven time and again they have no compassion for anyone but their country club fellows. And they arrogantly uphold their ridiculous partisan policies out of pride and power-hunger, no matter what the results are for the well being of their respective states.
The academic drain Kansas experienced during those disastrous years when the state Board of Education was promoting poorly interpreted scripture over proven science is a very good example. When this public option is rejected, expecxt Kansas to lose a congressional district, while Iowa and other more-progressive states retain theirs, because small businesses, and the workers they hire, can survive better when healthcare ceases to be their burden.
If each of these states (or any state, blue, red or purple) had the guts to demand a fair share of tax revenue from those corporations who benefit most from our consumer nation, none of this would be an issue. But, as our latest manifestation of the Supreme Court proves every time they get a chance, corporations have more rights than We, the People.
Is there a point though where enough Texas residents would see the insanity of their leadership and throw the lunatics out.
I read about that why burn a book when you can just go Big Brother and rewrite the truth.
Yet the GOP says Obama wants to brainwash people.
So many targets so little time.
I find it strange that I could have to move from California to Louisiana to get health care. Jindal would probably opt out, too.
Olbermann (and Jane, too) are also absolutely correct that this is fundamentally a moral issue that has to be settled through the political process. The problem with getting into the sausage-machine that is parliamentary (little p, not big p) process is that it’s way too easy to focus on the process and forget about issues that should drive matters.
But it is the poor who will suffer as usual. How many people have to die waiting for the next election cycle, even if the “they will all be voted out if they opt out of a public plan” theory proves true, which I very much doubt?
Now the LOL Cat Bible…THAT’s a BIBLE!
http://www.lolcatbible.com/ind…..=Main_Page
I keep working hard for that day after day and year after year. Texas was reliably blue until the Reagan years and up until the illegal DeLay redistricting, had more Democratic representation in Congress than Republican. Rick Perry was elected last time with less than 40% of the vote! Why do I deserve to suffer because far fewer than half of Texas’ residents are morons??
Do you live in the good old U.S.of A? The same one I do? The same one that funds wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The cost of those wars would fund health care and a whole lot more. Were we not in Iraq and Afghanistan, I doubt you’d get a majority favoring funding moral obligations. Help your fellow man? Not a big desire here.
But, but, but TX has malpractice reform. /s
California can’t afford to opt-out. Their budget problems are so severe that they’ll leap at the chance to get out of Medi-Cal (California’s one-off version of Medicaid).
The wingnut minority in the California Legislature would like to dump Medi-Cal in favor of nothing. Fortunately, they can’t whip enough votes to do it.
Texas might try to opt-out, but I’m not sure even the infamous Texas Lege (God bless you, St. Molly of Ivins) could muster the votes to pass it. I’m sure Goodhair would sign such a bill, if he’s in office. But I’m equally certain that no such bill could get through The Lege.
Jane, I think the most important insight in your post is that we focus too much on the politics. If our guiding star in reforming health care is to do it in such a way as to keep Democrats in power, then we will fail in both efforts.
Does this plan really have a chance does the GOP have the support in their Red states to go without a public option when our states get one?
JEP07 @ 18 is right we have already seen poor folks leave red states for blue for the higher welfare benefits this will increase the number. So many will leave there goes the South’s low wage advantage no workers.
Oh wait immigrants big business will flood the south with Immigrant workers as their workers leave.
The Tea baggers will love that fact this is the kind of thing Rove put in robo calls. Only he would be lying on his robo calls.
The Texas Ledge was just in session this past year which means they won’t be in session for another two years, unless of course Goodhair calls a Spatial Session just to opt out. :(
Do the dems have anyone running for gov. besides Kinky?
If the Opt Out plan is what it takes to win 60 cloture votes, then that is a small price to pay, precisely because few if any states will opt out. Any state that DOES opt out will likely see significant penalties at the polls. I’m sorry for “Red state” denizens who might see their access to a public plan delayed by a few more years, but if the options are
A) strong public option with an opt out provision
B) weak public option
C) public option with BS trigger
D) no public option
Then (A) clearly wins, because in the end, the public of all the states will demand that public option. And if the good people of Oklahoma decide they don’t: that’s the price of democracy.
Joined POP and sent them a little dust.
Texas aside, we are not talking about the residents of one state. ANYBODY left behind is too many! We are all human beings and we all have equal value and we all deserve health care. Anybody who doesn’t automatically understand that as a basic premise doesn’t deserve to call themselves progressive in my opinion.
This guy is thinking of running for President with less than 40% support in his home state? Assuming Obama can keep Hispanic vote numbers up I think Perry any GOPer really is in trouble.
Yeah, there’s a guy who was a good golfin’ buddy of Chimpy. ;)
And Eve Gittelson, posting as “nyceve,” has been doing an outstanding job of educating the blogosphere about the evils of “murder by spreadsheet” for many year. I known for decades that our healthcare system was badly screwed up, but I primarily blamed the providers, until I started reading Eve’s excellent murder-by-spreadsheet diaries at Dkos educated me to the horrible villany of the insurers.
BTW, Olbermann did an excellent hour-long special comment last night that focused the discussion onto the personal and moral dimension.
Is it any wonder the Republicans want ACORN out of circulation, because they encourage those poor people to vote? It is very hard to mobilize these victims, when their frustrations make them give up on the our cold-hearted, CEO-managed government and the not-so-democratic process that keeps it in power.
If the middle class and the poor (growing closer every day, as our billionaire economy equalizes the middle and the bottom) would exercise their democratic duties as reliably as the wealthy and their middle class white-collar toadies, we would have had universal health CARE (rather than “insurance”) long, long ago.
States with budget issues would likely JUMP at the public option – which would be national in scope – precisely because it will be cheaper. The state opt-out doesn’t transfer the funding to the states, it simply allows states not to participate in the cheaper, more efficient public plan.
If we really believe a public plan works better, what is everyone so afraid of?
2 things for those of you contemplating the Opt-Out/Opt-In gambit
1. do you honestly think anything designed strictly to provide Ben Nelson political cover will do a damn bit of good for anyone other than Ben Nelson ?
2. and some kossack, wielding a rather large brush – paints a rather large kernel of truth:
IOW – oh by all means, place a big club in the hands of otherwise powerless and recalcitrant minority blocs in numerous state leg’s
Amen. I just hope we get that choice.
Tom Schieffer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Schieffer
This could give us the Red States next election just what is the GOP thinking. Every Red State young couple starting a family and worried about medical bills will be going our way!
I agree we need to fight this but if we lose the GOP loses the next election.
Don’t be sad for that. Be sad for all the great, heartfelt causes that went down because they didn’t have a brilliant strategic mind on their side!
Sorry. My #42 was meant in response to Hawes #33.
Perry got something less than 40 percent, (37% or 38%), of the vote but his current approvals were somewhere in the high 20s last I heard. His becoming president is about as likely as Texas seceding from the United States but if the man was reasonable and rational, we wouldn’t be having this lovely conversation. THAT’S why he would want to opt out. PRECISELY because he is NOT reasonable or rational.
“If the Opt Out plan is what it takes to win 60 cloture votes, then that is a small price to pay, “
I would agree wholeheartedly, but is this just one more bar to be raised if it looks like it might get jumped?
We’ve gone from universal healthcare to universal health insurance, to single-payer insurance, and now The Public Option.
How many different names will it take before we can righteously compare ourselves with the rest of the civilized world, in terms of healthcare?
Seriously, I agree at this juncture, any compromise is better than nothing, and baby steps are better than standing still or moving backwards.
But I am sure I speak for millions when I say that this political semantics two-step is wearing heavily on the public’s trust in their government, even those of us who had the audacity to hope for change.
Isn’t medicaid a liability that is transfered to the states at least in part? The bill needs to be analyzed to make sure that it is not creating unsustainable requirements to the states.
Dang Jane. This does surprise me. I never expected so many “me first” voices here at FDL.
Completely irrelevant thought: Wow. Slinkerwink looks a lot like Danica Patrick.
Given high unemployment numbers and more people who used to have insurance not having insurance anymore and what I think are an increasing amount of informed and energized voters does the GOP really want a popular vote in their states on healthcare they could lose this vote before the election.
Such a loss would make the GOP look weak and depress GOP voter turnout on election day after all if the GOP can’t carry a Red State on opting out of Healthcare why bother to vote on election day?
When we lost Molly Ivins, we lost our most powerful voice against this sort of wingnuttery. There isn’t a major daily in this state right now that would hire anybody as liberal and outspoken as she was.
High 20’s and the GOP lets him make National News they let him be one of the National faces of the GOP. If the guy can’t convince Texas how will he appeal to Peoria Illinois?
The National GOP must also be insane then for not reigning in the Crazy.
As a Chicano and a military vet, I have long advocated for the “open access” to the Indian Health Services and the VA. This was and has been done on the premise of the “moral high ground”. Anything less, and we will find ourselves ‘arguing’ on the actual issues of ‘minutiae’ such as opt-outs and a state’s participation. And to date, we have arrived at this discourse on minutiae.
Consequently, raising the bar to a much higher content and context, is now critical. And btw, my thanks to the Progressive Caucus, for showing us the proper path to travel despite the Rhambos in the White House.
And lest I forget, thanks Jane for the obvious and much needed reminder.
Jaango
For all of those who are trying to rationalize support for this stupid scheme by saying that the GOP will lose votes because of it: Once again-it is the poor and the sick who will lose, no matter what happens electorally. You understand that by supporting this, you are condemning a certain number of people to DEATH who would not otherwise die, don’t you? How callous. How unfeeling. How Republican.
I don’t think that there are many me first voices. It is more of a gaining what we can and then pushing in those states with backward leges. – Showing how much better things can be with expanded coverage for all.
AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…
Citizen Hamsher and the Firepup Freedom Fighters:
Of coarse the “opt-out” would be criminally cruel, heartless and make everyone in this struggle culpable for the suffering of others…but, Sister Jane, are we not ALWAYS culpable for the suffering of others in a country with the resouces we have or have had? My feeling is that we should pass a strong, medicare public option like what has been proposed by progressives in the House even if it requires some fancy footwork in the Senate and ultimately reconciling in conference. In fact the “fancy footwork” would go a long way to blowin away once and for all the smoke screen of the “60 vote threshold”. However, if the state opt-out was passed and some states in the South stayed out initially, it wouldn’t be long before the fascist political stranglehold on the state governments would be broken forever.
I too have struggled with the idea that anyone should suffer one more moment for politics but, dear Sister Jane, the suffering of the people has gone on for over 200 years, would that another year or two might just keep faith with those who have struggled through our past if it leads to a new day and the end of the political structure that has kept everyone in chains for two centuries.
KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE AMMUNITION, THE STRUGGLE IS ALL THERE IS!!
The National GOP must also be insane then for not reigning in the Crazy.
Of course they are! This is not news.
THAT, my friend is a matter of perspective. I imagine it is much easier to rationalize that from your cozy blue state that WILL have an option available.
Perry is a Tea Bagger right so in Texas the Tea Baggers only have high 20’s support then? If the Tea Baggers can’t carry Texas then just what states can they carry?
Has the GOP stopped hiring Pollsters to see what ideas will attract voters? And which ideas have the public support to win elections?
Yes, Medicaid is a joint Federal-State funded program. The states have to budget for it, and the Feds match. In some cases, the match is as much as 2.5:1 or so. The formula is definitely arcane, and depends on the State’s uninsured rate, population, and probably other stuff I can’t remember.
But here’s the deal, Mike. If we took current State and Federal spending for health care (Medicare, Medicaid, VA, IHS, and Civil Service employee benefits are the biggies, there are a few smaller programs too) we’d have enough (and extra, too) to fund a single-payer system on the French model. FWIW, the French had the highest per capita spending (ignoring the outlier that is US). And the French have way better health outcomes.
That ignores all of the private spending on health care. The money is there to do this: but it’s sticking in the hands of the insurance industry and the smaller scale fraudsters.
I’m not supporting this I am for fighting it but I am amazed at the stupidity behind the GOP’s thinking on this.
This ranks up there with picking Sarah Palin as VP.
The proportion of tea baggers to sane people in Texas is similar to most other states: Between a fifth and a third.
I agree. Wholehearedly. But it is the poor who will suffer and die and that will go on for much longer if this stupid opt out plan gets any progressive support. It’s that simple.
As a fellow Texan, I would certainly rather obtain the possibility of a strong public option for those states which want it, rather than lose that possibility competely. It just seems to me that you are more optimistic about the likelihood of gaining a mandatory strong public option for everyone than I am. My recent college-graduate granddaughter is among the uninsured, and I and my kids have all been through such risky periods in the past. I just think it would be much better for Texans to have the chance to accept a public option now, or in the future, than to not have that chance.
I do not disagree that single payer is by far the best option but we have a lot of work to do in the political arena before we can get there.
So they might not be able to carry any states? I think this plan is a trial balloon then the GOP is just throwing ideas out there and seeing if anything can get Moderate voters to switch to their side.
This also means the National GOP leaders are ignoring their pollsters.
Of course Goodhair has no problem with appropriating $22 million for the Governor’s Mansion restoration (also taking some Federal stimulus funds for it), and in the meantime having taxpayers foot $10,000/mo for his rent.
Texas has been reliably blue until the early eighties when we had a huge influx of people. Carpetbaggers like George W Bush, Yankee posers like Ted Nugent and cowboy wannabes like Chuck Norris. These people aren’t Texan. Ann Richards was Texan. Molly Ivins was Texan. Stevie Ray Vaughn was Texan. I’m Texan. Not these idiots in the news.
it won’t but Rahm may like this.
I’M among the uninsured! My job went away in January and with it my insurance. I can’t get private insurance because of the dreaded pre-existing condition. So I do have a dog in this fight.
Margaret, I assume that you believe that Texas would opt out – is that correct?
Obama needs to fire Rahm fucking Emauel. Period.
I’m sure Perry would try. I’m not willing to take that risk.
If the Opt Out plan is what it takes to win 60 cloture votes, then that is a small price to pay,…
So let’s say you have your heart set on a week-long, luxurious trip to Acapulco. Your spouse says NO – how’s about we just go to Taco Bell instead. I assume that you figure that it would be a “small price to pay” to cave on that?
precisely because few if any states will opt out.
Been living in this country long?
I’m sorry for “Red state” denizens who might see their access to a public plan delayed by a few more years, but…
Well, that’s mighty big of you. From your comment, you obviously assume that *your* state won’t opt out – but it’s nice that you you’re willing to cough up a ‘tut-tut’ while you watch others get screwed. And there is no *but*, dickweed.
again, it’s been designed to provide political cover for Conservadems period
collateral benefit – divide and conquer progressives.
anyone buying in to this shit reinforces that smirk on Rahm’s face
now please, get on the god damn phone
Margaret @ 73.
I understand, but if you are still willing to gamble on either a mandatory public option for all states at this time or nothing, you have more confidence in it’s chances than I do.
Jon Walker has a fresh cross-post up on the front page: “CBO: We Didn’t Really Score the Finance Committee Bill; $44 Billion, Millions of Uninsured Americans Ignored”
Maybe I missed something, but I haven’t seen whether the opting out would be decided by the gov or the lege. Don’t know that in the case of Texas if it would even matter. I’m sorry you lost your job and your insurance and hope that things improve.
Who says it would be a national program? Remember this compromise is being proposed to the Senate Finance Committee bill, which passes some costs on to states.
And exactly how do you administer a national program that leaves out states willy-nilly as political winds change at the state level.
Given that Rahm’s last Big Win was NAFTA I think I’m wondering why he has a job and I am starting to think any cause Rahm supports is doomed to failure.
The war on providing healthcare will not be won until we have universal single payer for all just like the civilized world.
Margaret, I’m with you. We’re all in this together.
This opt out business is ridiculous. Civil rights legislation has never permitted such a thing and we shouldn’t start now. Jane mentioned Roe v. Wade. What about voting rights? What about slavery? Yeah, that worked out real well on a state-by-state basis and we’ve got national parks and cemeteries to prove it.
I am mystified that the Dems are so morally bankrupt and fiscally dishonest that they think they can get away with calling the Health Insurance Bailout bill “health care reform”. We need to keep hammering away at their complete failure to live up to their campaign promises on this issue, not succumb to the divide and conquer tactics of the health insurance lobby.
You can’t
You haven’t missed anything as you well know because there have been no details released yet as to how this would work. The devil is in the details so even if on the face this seems a reasonable compromise, (it doesn’t but let’s say it does), then when the details are hammered out and it royally screws people by giving them zero input, how will you defend it then?
EXACTLY! This is the Missouri Compromise of health care and we all know what a rousing success THAT was. I wish I could be as eloquent.
Jane -
I don’t doubt you -
is there a link somewhere on the HCAN endorsement ?
anyway you could flesh out the FEC stuff just a little more ?
Atlantic’s link makes it sound all hunky-dory – Section 501(c)(3) vs Section 501(c)(4)
Police: Karaoke Singer Attacked Over Performance
STAMFORD, Conn. (AP) — Police say a woman singing karaoke in a Connecticut sports bar was attacked by six other women who didn’t like her performance.
In America you get get beat up for singing badly . . . you think Americans truly care if their neighbors, or citizens in other states, have health insurance?
Well, I maybe I’m just being my normally cynical self.
Nonetheless, I can see the opt-out possibly working; but Twain has a good point, it is important that any opt-out require a vote by the state legislature, not just a governor’s whim. That would prevent a number of states from opting out.
Dang! I’ve been sitting here too long. Thanks for the wonderful debate folks! :-)
well (((Tex,))) Missouri Compromise is pretty damn eloquent – me likey very much
No way am I defending it – I was just asking questions. I am not in favor of the opt out at all – in fact, I think it is immoral nonsense. The political in and out of it boggle the mind.
and again, pls see my point @ 41 above re: empowering otherwise powerless blocs in numerous states
LOL : ) You are plenty eloquent, just wanted you to know some of us Yankees got yer back ; )
Jane,
I’m not sure the “Public Option” provision as it stands is worth fighting for. It is public in name only, and mandates that the separate programs in each state be controlled and run by the large private insurance cos. already selling private plans in that state. See the article written by longtime health insurance researcher, Kip Sullivan.
In other words, the insurers are mandated to form their own competition. This is how PO is keeping his promise to the organization of private health insurers that a public option would be written so it could never lead to single payer.
If we really want medical care as a right in this country as the other industrialized countries have, and no one excluded, we need to organize for a public option that is truly public–either gov’t run (Fed or state) or by newly created not-for-profit cos. overseen closely by the gov’t. Opponents of all public options call it gov’t-run in their disinformation campaigns even when it isn’t, so what do we have to lose?
I also encourage readers to participate in the AFL-CIO’s action for us to file individual complaints to the agency that regulates insurance in our state about the use of insurance premiums for the purpose of lobbying and the resultant sky-rocketing of premiums–
“Draft complaint text to be modified by individual:
I believe that health insurance company lobbying expenditures have led to excessive insurance rate hikes, and I urge you to investigate the impact of the costs of health insurance companies’ lobbying expenditures on health insurance premiums.
In the past 10 years, the health care industry has spent more than $3.5 billion on lobbying activities, making it the second-highest spending industry out of 121 industries profiled by the Center for Responsive Politics. The health care industry ranks as the single highest spender on lobbying activities so far in 2009, having outspent the financial services sector by more than $40 million.
The health care industry’s lobbying expenditures have clearly impacted consumers’ health care costs. For example, at the same time that Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield was preparing to request your approval to raise insurance premiums for New Yorkers by up to 30 percent in some cases, Blue Cross and Blue Shield spent more than $9.5 million on lobbying activities. Similarly, the UnitedHealthcare insurance company recently proposed a rate increase for its Medicare supplement insurance while spending more than $2.6 million on lobbying activities in the first two quarters of this year.
In light of your obligations to ensure that insurance rates are not excessive or unfair, I urge you to investigate the impact of health insurance company lobbying expenditures on health insurance premiums and adopt regulations to prevent lobbying costs from being transferred to consumers through excessive rate increases.”
Maybe we can begin to rein in the gravy train to Congress that deafens them to the desperate need.
No Public Option Opt-Out Contingency Without a Single-Payer Opt-In Contingency
Question: How many states have actually opted out of receiving Stimulus funds? Anybody know?
then we can’t accept leaving behind 17 million without even insurance. if we really believe that healthcare is a human right, then imo we have to fight for universal healthcare and that probably means single payer — not a mandate system to give the private insurance companies more power.
Jane, sorry I missed your posts on this prior to putting up my diary at the Sperm Bank.
I still believe that if this opt-out provision survives, which may require an ERISA waiver, it would only be right to make survival of the single-payer ERISA waiver (aka the Kucinich amendment) part of the deal. The legislatures of two of our most populous states, California and Pennsylvania are set to jet on taking their states directly to the only kind of system that actually ensures health care as a civil right.
Thank you for all your hard work Jane! You are incredible!
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Progs spent decades in the wilderness eschewing hardball tactics and “leading with their hearts.” The only reason we are IN this curent struggle, one we just might win, is by strategizing and kicking groin. I’m all for getting dewey-eyed and singing Kumbaya once in a while but let’s not forget we are in a war. The important thing right now is to really understand this opt-out thing. Instinctively I don’t like it. It could be a means to an end but the devil is in the details, of it and the final version of the PO.
That’s an interesting jiu-jitsu move!
Name-calling sucks, period.
Me too, Margaret. You’re not alone out there.
It is foolish to think that a Senate compromise will be resolved with a stronger House bill.
It has never happened, and it never will.
That’s all I’m saying. I worry though that the state legislatures would be subjected to the same downpour of healthcartel $$$$$ that has so polluted the Congress and Prez. Lotta convolutions in this and devil in the details.
Wow, no comment from Jason. Amazing. This slamming of HCAN is good. They were spotted out early on.
Margaret, you are indeed the “human face” Jane talks about in the post. This is a white-hot fight and tempers flare. Call people jerks, call -em a**holes, but PLEASE don’t call ‘em Republicans!
I don’t think it would be just like the stimulus situation. Is there any rich powerful constituency like the health insurance industry that has something substantial to lose from an individual state accepting stimulus funds? I think the dynamics of power and corruption would be much more intense for a healthcare opt-out.
I would expect that dropping this crucial life and death issue to the state level would have both good and bad effects for state-level politics. On the down side, it would bring more corruption to state legislatures. On the plus side, it would bring more public awareness to state politics. If your family’s health insurance situation is in the hands of state legislators, you are going to figure out who’s on your side and who’s fucking you. I predict that this would turn many red states purple and many purple states blue. If slinkerwink is right and Dems are bought off such that even some blues states opt out, I would expect a lot more Dem primaries.
Either way, one result would be a big increase in civic engagement at the state level. Is it worth it to leave people to fight this out on the state level knowing that many will lose in the short term? I don’t know. It seems feasible that this could move things along overall by clarifying results. If a national public option passes, it will be blamed by the right for everything that’s wrong with healthcare, while the left will argue that it would have been much worse otherwise. The cause and effect will be much more obvious with this opt-out deal. Maybe it will get us to a better deal for everyone sooner. Correct me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t the current bills being considered not go into effect until 2013 anyway? WTF is up with that? If we can trade this opt-out deal for letting the states that opt in start immediately, I think that could lead to people in red states getting the public option sooner than 2013.
I called Capuano’s office and he is backpedaling. I asked if he is standing by his signature on the letter this summer.
Staffer said the letter Capuano signed never meant he would vote against any bill without a public plan with rates tied to Medicare. (Am I confused?)
Staffer said Capuano intends to carefully consider any bill that comes up, regardless of public plan status.
The House of Lords certainly doesn’t take their cue from the House of Commons…
Yeah, I agree. Opting-out I believe would be driven more by bone-headed ideology than budget considerations. Hence, the “outers” would probably come from dark red states. Rural states might opt-out if the PO were tied, inflexibly, to medicare rates since rural areas are re-imbursed very poorly under Medicare. I know this because I am in the health field and usually live in rural parts of Calif. Rural areas have a point about medicare reimbursement. A new formula needs to be devised to make it fair to them. That would remove a lot of rural opposition to the PO.
Didn’t know this. So whatever comes out of the Senate is the highwater mark? No influence from the House, except to simply reject?
I really don’t believe that Nelson needs cover from all the voters in Nebraska (or wherever the fuck that asshole’s from) who will punish him for reducing the cost of their health insurance. The cover he needs is from his insurance industry bosses. So if this opt-out gives him cover, it must be because Cigna, etc. think it will help their bottom line, right?
I guess it’s possible that the insurance lobby could be misplaying this, but I wouldn’t count on it.
All things considered, it is hard for me to beleive that the Carper Compromise will end up being a deal breaker.
Of course, the folks raging against it are right, but that and 75 cents will get you a bad cup of coffee.
If in the end this is the cost of getting a decent public option, I would vote for it.
I guess I’m not understanding something here.
I see the things we seek breaking down into 3 categories:
1) Universal coverage
2) Prohibitions on not covering preexisting conditions and capricious non-payment and cancellation of coverage
3) Cost control
#s 1 and 2 are the issues of moral and ethical import.
#3 is about money.
The public option is primarily a means of addressing #3.
Under the opt-out provision, the people in the states that opt out will still have coverage, # 1 &2 will be mostly handled, so I don’t see the pressing moral problem.
They will, if the public option works as we think it will, have to pay more. If instead it works as the majority of the voters in some states seem to think it will, they will pay less.
I don’t see the problem. Let the economic theories be tested, side-by-side.
If, as seems likely, the opt-out option will result in a stronger public option, crafted by people who believe in it, that is a big gain. The real thing will get a chance to prove itself rather than some crippled version that is likely to become scorned.
Is Cappy still saying he is the one who can best try to fill some of the shoes of Teddy? Teddy would have shoed the ass out of him.
I’ve been looking but I still can’t find evidence of states actually refusing stimulus money…I’m not sure about the opt out thing, but I would be very interested in seeing whether any GOP Govs had had the balls (and the idiocy) to actually turn down the cash.
Anyone know?
good on ya for the call !
you are not confused. the point of the Pledge action all along was accountability – he will have well deserved trouble for any backtracking
Lyndon Johnson, the father of Medicare, was also a Texan.
Margaret, I really don’t think that’s the problem. Rahm’s his tool. He just needs to tell Rahm to do something different. Rahm may be unpleasant, but he’s not in charge. If we don’t like what the Administration is doing, we need to fire Obama.
Hawes assumed this:
Within that scenario what do you pick? If you pick anything but A), then you’re the “dickweed,” not Hawes.
Let’s be clear, if there’s anything we can do to get a strong PO without an opt-out provision, we certainly should do that. But, if not, Hawes is right.
That’s true. The devil is in the details. No opt-out of a National PO plan should be agreed to without a heavy price for our side being exacted.
How about this price?
1) An opt-in for States to extend the right to their under 65 citizens to buy into Medicare in place of the PO system?
2) Subsidies for people under a certain income who want to migrate from one State to another to take advantage of either the PO or the Medicare options
3) A guarantee from the blue dogs and any Republicans proposing the compromise that they will vote against cloture and also vote for the final bill.
Score one for our side. If this is our principle, then we can’t compromise on a PO bill that will leave 17 million uncovered.
Health care as a “human right.”
I think it depends on the particular type of PO that is passed. If everyone can select the PO, and if the subsidies were large enough and mandates were there, it would certainly provide universal coverage or very close to it. The House bill leaves 17 million uninsured because it’s not as strong as this. It has ineligibility and subsidy constraints.
All of sudden its not a hot idea huh? – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWXRwrYa4oU
T.R Reid – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSmfZ1tlj7Y
Not the best idea, but you have two choices you can LEAVE your Red State or Force them to Cover you.
Here we are all three hundred million of us batting about all that the Congress does, and other peoples opinions on what we should have or not have on healthcare.
Worrying about red and blue states, right and left, like little kids fighting over a piece of candy.
We like the fools we are, are waiting to find out what 535 people will give us. Just like kids Christmas morning wondering what might be under the tree. Like those kids we have hinted, ask, and even told them what we want, but them like parents will supply what they want to give, which is seldom what we ask for.
We like those kids dare not make to much of a fuss, or we might get nothing. We like those kids can’t demand anything because like parents, the Congress controls our lives.
This is not the scenario our forefathers wanted our Government to be, or for us to be in. They wanted us to tell our Government what we wanted from it, by sending our representatives to it. We let those people become our deciders, and haven’t demanded they represent us for many years. So we get what they give, and take what they shove, and end up sucking on it like an all day lolly pop. We have no other choice, and not what it takes to fight it.