Why the Public Option Opt-Out Puts Republicans in a Bind

[steven johnson]

The opt-out public option that the Senate Democrats are looking to pass puts the GOP in a bind. This is like the stimulus money the Obama Administration offered GOP governors who railed against it in principle and then caved in and took it in practice.

Government benefits are hard to turn down, even with strings attached.

Andrew Sullivan, whose “Daily Dish” blog on the Atlantic’s Web site often limns the conservative perspective, says that Senate majority leader Harry Reid’s plan for a government-run insurance option — from which states could opt out — will put Republicans in a bind, even if they consider the public option an evil liberal plot. That’s because “it forces Republicans not to rail against socialism in the abstract but to oppose actual benefits for the working poor in reality.”


Why the Public Option Opt-Out Puts Republicans in a Bind

When others in other states can get such a plan, will there not be pressure on the GOP to help their own base? Won't Bill O'Reilly's gaffe - when he said what he believed rather than what Roger Ailes wants him to say - be salient? Won't many people - many Republican voters - actually ask: why can't I have what they're having?

Imagine Republicans in state legislatures having to argue and posture against an affordable health insurance plan for the folks, as O'Reilly calls them, while evil liberals provide it elsewhere. Now, of course, if the public option is a disaster in some states, this argument could work in the long run. But in the short run? It's political nightmare for the right as it is currently constituted. In fact, I can see a public option becoming the equivalent of Medicare in the public psyche if it works as it should. Try running against Medicare.

The genius of the opt-out is that it coopts the states' rights argument (just as ending the prohibition on marijuana does); it has the potential to make "liberalism' popular again; it has easily demonized opponents - the health insurance industry; and it forces Republicans not to rail against socialism in the abstract but to oppose actual benefits for the working poor in reality.

It's a brutal, Chicago-style political maneuver. And Obama appears not to be the person really pushing it.


The Lethal Politics Of The Opt-Out Public Option

[Atticus]

1. About the "mechanics" of opting out---

since every Republican senator who's ever been asked has insisted that health care reform legislation should require a super-majority of 6o to pass the Senate, IF we MUST have an opt-out provision included to get a public option provision, why don't we agree with the Republican stance? A state would have to put the issue to a public referendum and it would require 60% voting to reject the public option in order for the state to "opt out".

I'm still hopeful that we can "opt out of the opt out" and pass a straight-up public option, but it would be fun to throw the Repub's own "reasoning" back in their face if the opportunity presents itself.

[Tutankhamun]

2. This article assumes that the public option is going to be a viable, successful route to affordable

health care. If that's the case, then it will naturally be political suicide to force your state to opt out. But if Republicans are successful in crippling the public option so badly as to make it ineffective, then they will lead the charge to "opt out" of this "failed socialist scheme." In that scenario, opting out will be "saying no to big government."

That's why it's so important politically to make sure the bill is effective. If it doesn't deliver on its promise of affordable health care for everyone, Republicans will paint it as an example of the failure of "socialism."

[jtrockville]

3. YES, getting it RIGHT is more important than getting "something"

[patrice]

4. Exactly right.

[AdHocSolver]

5. Correct. K and R. n/t