Revisiting The Opt-out Craze

by: Chris Bowers

Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 12:00


Late last week, many progressive pundits gave vocal support to an "opt-out" public option idea floated by Senators Schumer and Carper. Howard Dean, Nate Silver, Markos Moulitsas (over twitter), Big Tent Democrat, Tom Matzzie and thereisnospoon were just some of the voices in the chorus.

Many of these progressives were eager to support the opt-out because they believed it would ease passage of the bill, create political problems for Republicans, and that few states would opt-out. However, there were always two major problems with the opt-out, problems that have not been alleviated during the five days since the start of the craze:

  1. No one knows what sort of public option states would be opting out of. It has never been made clear what type of public option states would be opting out of. It could be the weak, Schumer level-playing field public option. It could be the negotiated rates public option. It could be the Medicare +5% public option. It could be a public option even stronger than that. However, no one knows what it actually is:

    The group submitted the idea to Senate Majority Harry Reid's office on Tuesday. But as of Thursday afternoon, no official white paper existed for Senators to work off of.

    All that existed, indeed, was a somewhat vague idea with a myriad question marks. What kind of national public plan would be established? How, exactly, would states be able to opt-out? Would consumers be allowed to cross state lines for insurance?

    If we don't even know what type of public option is in the opt-out compromise, there is no justification for claiming it is a better compromise than Senator Schumer's "level playing field" compromise. For all we know, it might be worse.

  2. We don't know if the opt-out gains any votes. 51 Senators on record in support of the Schumer "level playing field" public option. This means there are enough votes to pass that public option if it achieves cloture. The other nine Democratic Senators fit into two tiers of likelihood on the cloture vote:

    • High-level threats to vote against cloture: Evan Bayh, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln and Ben Nelson
    • Low-level threats to vote against cloture: Max Baucus, Mark Begich, Kent Conrad, Joe Lieberman, and Mark Pryor

    Five days after the opt-out craze hit the big-time, not a single member of the high-level threat group has come out in favor of the opt-out plan. The best it has done is to move Ben Nelson from not ruling out a vote against cloture on health care reform with a public option, to saying the opt-out idea is "worth looking at." But it isn't clear that is any movement at all, since Nelson has just moved from being noncommittal to being noncommittal. Nelson did seem open to Carper's "opt-in" proposal, but I think every progressive pundit listed above would agree the opt-in is nowhere near as attractive as the opt-out.

    If the opt-out compromise does not gain any votes for health care reform with a public option--which so far it has not--then there is no justification for claiming it is easier to pass then other public options.

These two points--that we don't know what kind of public option is in the opt-out plan and we don't know if the opt-out plan will be easier to pass--render all other discussions about the value of the opt-out idea moot. Considerations such as how many states would opt-out, or the political problems an opt-out would create for Republicans, just don't matter if the proposal doesn't get us any closer to passage. Claims that the opt-out compromise is superior to the Schumer level playing field compromise cannot be justified if we don't know what sort of public option is in the opt-out compromise.

We progressive need to start demanding a higher level of detail and proof before jumping on board with the latest compromise craze. Specifically, we should be looking for Blue Dogs and Conservadems to be jumping on board with compromise crazes before we do. Otherwise, I fear we are just confirming the deeply held belief that progressives are more willing to cave to Blue Dogs and Conservadems than we are to forcing them into line. That is a belief we must dispel if we are going to have a more influential role in governing under the Democratic trifecta.

Chris Bowers :: Revisiting The Opt-out Craze

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
What we also do not know (4.00 / 3)
Is how many votes the opt-out will lose us. Proponents think that progressive red state Dems, in places like Texas and Georgia and Florida, would back the opt-out even though their own states would be quite likely to use it and deny their residents a public option. There would be some significant defections in the House from an opt-out bill.

Of course, the mentality behind this is that the opt-out is only necessary to move this out of the Senate. Here again the logic is bizarre. Not only could the opt-out also cost votes in the Senate, it more importantly blows up the coalition in support of the public option.

Red state progressives would have no reason to back this, and would - in fact, some already are - become quite resentful of their blue state "allies" who decided they were expendable. Even if the conference committee does its job and kills the opt-out, which is no guarantee, the presence of the opt-out in the Senate bill would be reported by the media as a genuine plan that Democrats have embraced.

Red state progressives, along with many of us in the blue states who refuse to be a party to this unconscionable sell-out, would be in a position of having to threaten to oppose a bill in its entirety should the conference committee fail to remove the opt-out.

If I were a conservadem looking to wedge apart the progressive coalition, this is precisely what I would do. It is shameful how easily some progressives are willing to throw others overboard.


The long march (4.00 / 2)
Everyone seems to be looking for the exit at this point. I don't blame them, since the strategy of our enemies on this one has been largely successful. Show a little ankle to the President, who can't afford not to win one, or appear to win one, while simultaneously doing whatever is in their power to exhaust the opposition. (Which, of course, is us.)

Most of the heavy lifters on this one, such as yourself, Chris, could be forgiven for teetering on the edge of madness at this point, so I'm glad to see that some of you aren't yet ready to buy a pig-in-a-poke. Still, with the defections of so many former stalwarts, I fully expect the something is better than nothing thesis to win out in the end.

As for fix it later, I have to ask: Exactly what later are we talking about? When the last chicken of our failed empire has come home to roost, we'll have other things to worry about. Food first, or medicine? is likely to be the only real choice for many of us -- never mind asking who we should primary first, or how big our expeditionary forces in the stans should really be.


i think it was more conditional support than "yes" (0.00 / 0)
it was IF the public option is robust and federal, and IF this is the path to 60 votes, then we could accept this as a compromise.

personally, I'd like a lot more. (heck, I'd like single payer.) but at least this is back within reasonable territory.


That was certainly the case with Dean. (4.00 / 1)
DFA emphasized his caveats a few days later.

[ Parent ]
Appearance Over Reality (4.00 / 1)
Near as I can tell, the entire rationale is that this is a way to look like we're doing something significant.

That's what's got people so excited that they can't be bothered to think about any of "mere details" such as what it will actually do, and who will actually vote for it.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


Mixed (4.00 / 1)
I have a weird mixture of responses to this.  The first is: well, duh!  Of course these two items are what really matter.  But the points are so obvious, I'm not sure they qualify as points.

For #1, the whole point is this compromise seems better than the "level-playing field" compromise, the only version of the public option shown to be able to pass, so far.  So the public option itself must be much stronger than that version to be of any use.  If it is not, than support goes away.

On the other hand, if you don't see support as obviously tied to a strong public option, there is a good chance others don't as well.  Apparently, there is a need to emphasize this.

#2 is so obvious it is self correcting.  If it doesn't have the votes, it is worthless.

There are others that raised issue I find much more interesting, like the potential to set very bad legal precedent.  I pointed out that Medicaid was also optional, but they were correct that Medicaid is state run and partially state funded, which might make a big difference, legally.  I'm sure there are other issues I haven't thought of, as well.


Slight tangent: it is important that there was a craze (0.00 / 0)
That way, PO opponents and their enablers have less room to maneuver to prevent a PO's inclusion in the Senate merge: "wtf, you could not even bring the damned opt-out to the floor?"  If we were going to get a PO into the merge without the opt-out, then the craze was not so great, but who knows where we are/were with that prior to the craze? I'm somewhat inclined to trust Schumer on that...


These are the same reasons not to oppose the opt-out reflexively (4.00 / 2)
All this post proves is that the concept is not inherently bad or good.  

Opt-out = Having to fight this forever (0.00 / 0)
What bothers me about 'opt-out' is that it endlessly continues the fight on a state-by-state basis, where a lot of money is going to be wasted on both sides (especially in referendum states).

Our side spent a lot of money and effort to be in position to decide this today. Now we're going to create new, never-ending health care fights and (opportunity) costs on ourselves? Are we really that stupid? On the industry side, all these new, wasted lobbying/electioneering costs work against bending the health care cost curve.

Purposely designing 50 endless state political battles on health care as part of a solution to rising costs is madness.

"Don't take much, does it, elected Democrats, to get your balls tucked up." Cf.


Opt out of what... (0.00 / 0)
I saw Schumer on morning joe and he was quite clear that nobody was contemplating anything more than a level playing field public option. It was Sam Stein at HuffPo who got people salivating by suggesting that it could be a robust PO. Nobody inside the beltway ever said that. And now we hear that Ben Nelson won't support any opt out proposal, so I think it's DOA.

Donate to Open Left








Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search