(Thoughts from a Texan and fellow progressive on how Californians can best achieve consensus on keeping real health care reform alive. – promoted by Robert Cruickshank)
A warm “howdy” from the Lone Star State to my friends at Calitics! I’m a staff writer over at Burnt Orange Report, a progressive political blog following all things Texas. As we near what is hopefully a positive solution to the health insurance reform debate, I wanted to stop by the online public square for that other big state with huge numbers of uninsured residents to offer a brief reminder. As we work towards health care reform, progressives need to stick together to achieve real reform.
As you’re all well aware, the Senate is having trouble agreeing on a robust public option that would allow Americans to buy into a public plan. Some Senate Democrats representing Red States are reticent to support a strong public option. Meanwhile, Senate Republicans are united in their opposition to a strong public program to give all Americans access to health care. Per TPM, the latest “compromise” to pass any sort of public option might allow individual states to “opt out” of the national plan:
Both conservative and liberal Democrats seem to be open to a new public option proposal floated by Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Tom Carper (D-DE) to allow states not to participate in the plan if they decide they don’t want to.
Now, living in the state that not only has the highest rate of uninsured residents, but is “graced” with a Republican governor, Republican-majority legislature, and Republican-majority Congressional delegation, this is a pretty scary proposition. And unfortunately, I’ve seen some comments around the liberal blogosphere from folks I respect suggesting that this isn’t a deal breaker to them. As a resident of Texas who has helped organize on this issue, I’m here to tell you first-hand: it’s not progressive to make Red State residents the collateral damage of health care reform.
I’m more of a pragmatist than an ideological purist. I understand the perspective a public option for no one is far worse for our nation as a whole than a public option for just some of us. But it’s also really bad policy to pass on the negative consequences to the residents of many states who need reform the most. Here in the Red States, things are looking pretty bad on the major issues, including education, the environment, energy, criminal justice. We need to get Federal health care reform right, and no matter where we live, we need to make sure it’s inclusive to all Americans who need it. Part of being a progressive–part of believing that health care is a right for all people–means standing up to make sure that we all receive the same chance to get the care we need.
People in Red States basically rely on Federal policies to mitigate the harm perpetrated on us by our own elected officials. For those of us who live in Texas, because we’ve been gerrymandered such that both houses of our legislature and Congressional delegations are majority-Republican, we might not end up with the same right to access care as folks in states with sane representation at any level. And while we’re working really, really hard to elect more Democrats in Texas at the state and local level, it’s not OK for more of our people to be collateral damage while we work towards doing it. And it wouldn’t be OK if it was likely only negatively impact members of your state, either–it would be just as unfair.
In the meantime, don’t fall for a divide-and-conquer strategy. Don’t suggest that it’s OK for folks who need Federal policies to suffer the consequences if they don’t happen to live in the ‘right’ state. And don’t fall for the notion that this sell-out will flip undecided voters to our side. Senate Democrats compromising on the lives of Red State residents doesn’t actually make the persuadable voters more likely to vote for our team. I’d argue that failing to stick up its for core values makes a party less attractive. And in many cases, the electoral reality of the states in question simply means more people will be hurt from lack of health care, regardless of how they vote, before they’re able to reverse the situation at the ballot box.
When you’re a progressive in a Red State, you’re used to being stepped on by Republicans. It happens every day. It’s much harder to see my friends and colleagues in the Blue States deciding that my Texan neighbors are allowable collateral damage in public policy decisions. If you opposed triggers or co-ops because they left too many folks uninsured, then be consistent, and oppose an opt-out strategy that leaves people without a public option merely based on what state they live in.
Remember, there are plenty of proud progressives in every state, and even more folks who are counting on the Democrats to provide real reform. And the vast majority in need won’t be able to move somewhere else if our state opts out.
So as we prepare for the final push to pass real, comprehensive health insurance reform, don’t back down and give an inch towards a “compromise” that continues the same pattern of giving benefits to some and not to all.
As long as we have a 2/3 vote requirement on the budget and on any tax increase in California, we won’t be able to implement a health care plan until and unless we have 2/3 of both houses and the Governorship in the hands of progressive Democrats.
I’m on the fence about the “Opt-out”… Against it for the reasons you state, and for it because it would do less harm to people than the “trigger” or the “co-ops” would, and it has obvious political advantages.
Texans would still enjoy the benefits of reform concerning prior-conditions, caps, rescission, etc. Seniors and the disabled would still be covered by Medicare. Medicaid would still assist the indigent.
Texans would still be able (in theory) to buy cheaper insurance from the “exchange”, too. There just wouldn’t be a PO in there, so (In theory) it wouldn’t be the cheapest. The burden would fall mainly on working people who want insurance but cannot afford it at today’s prices.
I suspect that the Legislature and the Governor would fold pretty quickly once the difference became obvious, and major employers started rumbling about moving operations to states where the PO health plan was available. Perhaps the mere threat of “Going PO” would be enough to keep premiums down in the Exchange.
If it were up to me, we’d be going straight to national single-payer. But the PO appears to be the only “doable” alternative at this time, and the “opt-out” PO will disarm a lot of opposition from the blue dogs.
I will ask my senators to keep fighting for the 50-state, robust PO, and keep the Opt-Out handy just to parry the trigger proposal.