I’m so excited about the optional opt-out option

Monday, October 26th, 2009 · 9 Comments »
"Guess what!  No, really -- guess!  I'm not gonna tell you!"

'Guess what! No, really -- guess! I'm not gonna tell you!'

It’s so mysterious! I love mysterious announcements about mysterious bills that contain mysterious provisions that no one knows jack squat about.

Here’s Jane Hamsher’s take on the health care announcement:

In his presser, Harry Reid said very little about what kind of an “opt-out” he’ll put in the final bill.

The good news: Pressure on Reid from progressives when his poll numbers are flagging made him defy the White House. More importantly, he ratted them out to the press. Rahm thought he could continue to push for triggers in the background and satisfy the base by mouthing gibberish about “the President supports a public option” until it was too late. It didn’t work out so well.

The bad news: Having a state opt-out that will make corporatist Democrats happy is quite likely not to be “available nationwide from day one,” and thus does not meet the the definition of a “robust public option” by anyone’s terms.

Depending on how an opt-out was written, it could potentially disenfranchise large parts of the population…

Emphasis added. What the hell is in this thing? What are the details? What’s the plan, Stan?

And this whole states-opting-out thing is bullshit. Do people in red states not have rights?

Filed under: Healthcare Reform · Tags:

9 Responses to “I’m so excited about the optional opt-out option”

  1. madamab says:

    Let me asplain this to you, Violet.

    From what I’ve found out, the public option Reid is talking about is tied to Medicaid, which is funded by state taxes, rather than Medicare, which is funded by federal taxes.

    Did I mention how well the states are doing in this financial climate? And that unemployment is up to 15% in some of them?

    This is a horrible, horrible plan. I don’t care what Jane Hamsher says (that’s putting it mildly); this will help no one because it will not be adopted by anyone. And guess what? The private insurance companies will be doing a little happy dance all over the “progressives’” faces.

    The servers are crashing on the sites below…I wonder why?

    http://www.1payer.net

    http://pnhp.org

  2. madamab says:

    Shoot! Am in moderation, possibly because of snarky spelling or the presence of two links.

    Night!

  3. julia says:

    They’ll do everything for money. This country has become a bloody nightmare.

    Violet, I was hoping you would comment on the NYT piece that the White House is still a boy’s club, just a younger, basketball playing version.

  4. Violet says:

    Violet, I was hoping you would comment on the NYT piece that the White House is still a boy’s club, just a younger, basketball playing version.

    I was going to, julia. But you know what happened? Reading about that led me to the response piece in the WaPo, wherein a female Obot indignantly insists that Obama is the most wonderfulest, feminist, bestest friend women have ever had in the White House, and that it certainly doesn’t bother HER that he plays hoops with the boys, and she wishes the silly feminists would shut up.

    So I thought briefly about writing a post on that, kind of an explanatory “this is how women shoot down feminism: front line soldiers/fluffers of the patriarchy, sucking up to the boys and claiming feminists are silly.”

    But that’s a really, really depressing topic. I’d rather focus on the patriarchy itself or the men doing the patriarchalizing. Besides, we all know how this whole clusterfuck works anyway.

    Then I read through the comments at WaPo and saw someone say, “it’s probably just the stupid whiny PUMAs who are doing the complaining,” which depressed me even more because it reminded me that the Clinton/PUMA movement was the first genuine grassroots feminist uprising since the 70s, and certain self-appointed “feminists” behaved exactly like that WaPo columnist, doing everything possible to discredit the “hysterical bitches” (as one Obot blogger called Hillary supporters) and defend Their Man, Obama, as the most wonderfulest husband in the whole world! And remembering all that made me extra super duper depressed.

    So, I’m depressed.

  5. Aspen says:

    From what I’ve found out, the public option Reid is talking about is tied to Medicaid, which is funded by state taxes, rather than Medicare, which is funded by federal taxes.

    Oh geez, what fanatical idiocy. Thank you for explaining this, though. Cad, what morons.

    Then I read through the comments at WaPo and saw someone say, “it’s probably just the stupid whiny PUMAs who are doing the complaining,” which depressed me even more because it reminded me that the Clinton/PUMA movement was the first genuine grassroots feminist uprising since the 70s, and certain self-appointed “feminists” behaved exactly like that WaPo columnist, doing everything possible to discredit the “hysterical bitches”

    Youknow, I wasn’t even a PUMA. I’m to the left of both HRC and BO. I’ve been rolling my eyes at corporatist dems for a while now.
    I came to this and other similar blogs as a refugee from misogynist liberal dood nation. I occasionally put up with them and their communities, because I share their socio-economic views*.
    I don’t know what the last straw was exactly. There were a lot of last straws. But one of them for sure, is that I noticed the way they treated PUMAs. It was exactly the way the Right had always treated feminists and leftists. The demonizing, the lying, the distortions, the smears. Just disgusting.
    * the real left, not fauxgressives. There are a few good ones on the left, but they continue to let me down. Too much of the time. I’ll never go the the right, but I’m definitely open to alternatives to the dems.

  6. quixote says:

    I haven’t even seen that little Medicare / Medicaid detail anywhere else yet. Pretty soon I’ll just devolve into screaming nonstop. AAAAUUUUGGGGGHHHHHH.

    I’m with Violet. I’m depressed.

  7. Violet says:

    Aspen, you and me both. I’m to the left of the entire Democratic Party I think. Hillary is the only candidate I’ve ever gotten truly enthusiastic about, even though I’m well aware that she’s a pretty moderate Dem. But she’s a brilliant woman — one of the smartest, most capable people in government — and a tremendous feminist role model. I was so excited about the possibility of her becoming the first woman president.

    The treatment of PUMAs is exactly the way feminists have always been treated. Ridiculed, demonized, slandered. That some of the people doing the ridiculing/demonizing/slandering were feminists themselves is just depressing. There was a real division last year between establishment feminists who believed that Obama=feminism (as if!) and grassroots women who realized that both parties were just fucking us over, and that women needed to get leverage.

    I wrote about this when it started in June 2008: Archimedes Lever. At the time of that post, I predicted that the new grassroots women’s movement and establishment feminism would be at odds, but I was extremely saddened to see how MUCH at odds. It was painful to see establishment feminists attacking and slandering grassroots Democratic women.

  8. cellocat says:

    Combination of things: today I re-read parts of the speech Hillary gave at the end, in which she asked us if we’d been in it for her, or for the people. The thing that she couldn’t acknowledge but that so many of us felt (it seems to me) was that in being for Hillary was being for the people, since with all her intelligence, experience, fire, and expertise, she was a politician who could get things done for the people in a way with which we would have at least a reasonable amount of overlap.

    I still run into women in parking lots who see my Hillary sticker and express their wish that she’d won.

    The comparison between the extremely well-thought-out and explained health care reform plans that would have been brought forward and shepherded to a pass by President Hillary Clinton and this current mess is yet another disenheartening chapter in the depressing saga of the aftermath of the dem primary.

    How can we not be depressed? It doesn’t mean we won’t get up to fight another day, but at least the depression means we haven’t forgotten, and that’s good. So many people choose to forget in order to “move on” or to feel a part of the winning team. That’s part of how revisionist history is so sucessful. So, here we still are to remember, to express the truth as we see it, and to prevent us all from falling into a Borg collective.

  9. Aspen says:

    I love the Archimedes Lever post.
    I psychologically detached during the time you wrote it. So I don’t know how I would have processed it then, if I knew about your blog, or the extent of the movement. I had no idea.
    That’s why your archives are so valuable.