Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.
Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.
Afro-Netizen
All Spin Zone
Altercation
Americablog
And, yes, I DO take it personally
Another Iranian Online
August J. Pollak
Baghdad Burning
Barry Lando
Bloggrrrlz Gallery
Blondesense
Bob Geiger
Body and Soul
Boing Boing
Booman Tribune
BOP News
Bush Watch
BUZZFLASH
Carpetbagger
Clean Air Blog
Cool Hunting
Corrente
CrooksandLiars
Cursor
Dahr Jamail
Daily Howler
Daily Kos
DC Media Girl
DemiOrator
Direland
Echidne of the Snakes
Elayne Riggs
Eschaton
Fact-esque
Falafel Sex, and Other Things Best Left Unsaid
Farai Chideya
Feminist Peace Network
Feministe
Feministing
Frameshop
Gristmill
Huffington Post
Hullabaloo
Informed Comment
James Wolcott
Jesus General
Lady Jayne's Blog
Liberal Oasis
Mad Kane
Mahablog
Majikthise
Media Girl
Media is a Plural
MediaCitizen
Metafilter
Michael Berube
MyDD
News Dissector
News For Real
Norbizness
Oliver Willis
Pacific Views
Pandagon
Political Animal
PopPolitics.com
PR Watch
Prometheus 6
Raed in the Middle
RH Reality Check
Robert Greenwald
Roger Ailes
Rox Populi
Sadly, No!
Seeing the Forest
Shakespeares Sister
Sirotablog
Sisyphus Shrugged
skippy the bush kangaroo
Slacktivist
SpeakSpeak
Stay Free!
Steve Gilliard
Talking Points Memo
TalkLeft
TBogg
Thatcoloredfellasweblog
The Bilerico Project
The Hutchinson Political Report
The Republic of T
The Revealer
The Sideshow
The Swift Report
Think Progress
This Modern World
TikvahGirl
Trish Wilson
War and Piece
Waveflux
What She Said!
Whiskey Bar
Working Families Vote 2008
Five Organizing Questions on the Opt-Out Public Option
Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form
Following Chris' five process questions yesterday on the news that Reid will include an opt-out public option in the merged bill, I have five organizing questions of my own that I think are critical to making sure this bill is a success. As he wrote, a lot about the opt-out structure remains unclear, and I think the devil is in the details. These should serve as possible targets for amendments during the floor fight.
1. The date in which this starts. Availability of the public option is due to start in 2013. I see this as some bad and some good. On the bad side, there is limited help for people who need it now. It's also not clear to me that the bill itself gives Democrats a lot to work with in the midterm elections in terms to being able to demonstrate how health care is more affordable in November 2010. On the good side, things are going to get worse before they get better, so the "help is on the way" argument is useful, but not terribly compelling. Our side needs to make sure the date is as early as possible.
2. The timeline of opt-out. It is imperative that we push for states only being able to opt-out after the public option starts. People need to try this first before their state makes a decision. If there is no tangible benefit for people who need it, there will be no push to keep one's state from opting out.
And strategically, I prefer to only allow states to opt-out after their fellow residents have suffered under four more years of things getting either somewhat better or dramatically worse. The date in which states can opt out should be as late as possible. Let's dare the teabaggers and conservative legislators to look in the face of those who are getting screwed by insurance companies and tell them they aren't going to try something to help.
3. The ability to opt back in. Perhaps even more important is allowing states the ability to opt back in if results of the public option in other states show that others like it, and that it has improved the situation dramatically. For policy, political and moral reasons, we cannot permanently leave states on the outside looking in.
To some degree, I say this may be even more important than the start date of the public option, because if things are going to get worse before they get better, there may be a clamoring in current "red" states for opting back in, even if a state opted out the first day it could. I am also concerned about the success of the program if lots of states, including places like Florida and Texas, opt out, leaving a smaller pool of people participating. Political situations in states also change- we could see a surge of progressives elected in states that opted out, some running on the platform of doing something on health care. They need to have the ability to opt back in.
4. The manner in which states can opt out. What I've heard so far is that this will be by regular legislative action and gubernatorial signature. What about a requirement for a 2/3 votes in the legislature? What about the ability to put, or not put, the issue on the ballot? This may all be moot if Congress doesn't want to "interfere" in states' rights of passing legislation or whatever, and could mess up the whole fragile package of support in the Senate, but it's worth thinking about. We should try and dictate the manner in which states can opt out as much as possible and set up as many roadblocks as possible.
5. Organizing against opting-out. One of the real disappointments I have with the opt-out is that it means we're going to be now taking the fight to the state level on a number of fronts to ensure states don't opt-out. Lobbying, public pressure, whip counts. Some of you might see this as great fun, but I see it as more expenditure of resources that should be going towards other important fights coming up. This is all in the future, but we should start thinking now about the structure of such campaigns and the role the netroots can take in them. We should also start thinking about the current fight and what we could do better. The fight to keep states from opting out could start as early as next year. Or it could be happening in 2013. Our own self-examination now may help us think about what kind of policy amendments we should be focusing on to make sure we are prepared to fight these battles.
| Also in PEEK | |||
| After Conceding, Then Unconceding, Then Conceding, Then Unconceding, NY Conservative Concedes Doug Hoffman today issued a statement in which he admitted Bill Owens won the NY-23 special election. Post by Amanda Terkel. November 24, 2009. |
China on Reducing Its Carbon Footprint: Why Should We Have to? They've got a point. Per capita, China only produces 20 percent of America's carbon emissions. Post by Robert Dreyfuss. November 24, 2009. |
Supremes to Decide if Idle Rich's Scenic Ocean Views More Important than Public Beaches, the Environment A popular coastal reclamation program is being threatened by short-sighted scumbags. Post by Joshua Holland. November 24, 2009. |
|