On Sunday morning — Oct. 25th, 2009 — Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer of New York announced his and the Democratic party’s intentions to end the opportunity for a federal health care program.
Of course, this isn’t what was literally said, but when one examines the outcome of their proposal, it may become obvious that it is, in effect, what was proposed. When asked by moderator David Gregory if the final proposed health care bill would have a “public option,” the Senator responded, “I believe [Democratic Majority] Leader [Harry] Reid is leaning strongly to putting a ... state opt-out public option in the bill.” If Democrats around the country were not screaming at their television sets, they were hopefully phoning Senator Schumer’s and Reid’s offices respectively to voice their angst. As some would say, the Democrats want to have their cake and eat it, too.
The “opt-out” clause leads back to the main problems that brought it on the table. Approximately one in ten Americans at the moment are unemployed, and therefore do not have employer-financed health care or do not have the financial means to afford a personal plan.
In turn, one in ten Americans need a low-cost affordable option. Many of these unemployed, financially stricken and uninsured are in red states, and the Democrats need their “red” leaders to vote to support the bill. So they will appease their Republican counterparts and compromise.
They will tell them they can “opt-out” from this bill. Republican leaders will then support it, no longer fearing pressure to spend large sums of money on a program they disagree with. Likewise, Democrats will get a “universal health care” bill not only passed, but passed with bipartisan support.
They’ll have their cake and eat it, too, or so they think.
If this plan passes with an “opt-out” clause in it for states, the Democrats will harm their constituencies more than they will help it. They celebrate bipartisan support on a bill that gives “health care to all,” though in reality they will be further alienating those they intended to help.
With fiscally conservative Congressmen, Senators and Governors in one of the poorest yet most “conservative” regions of the country, the Southeast will gladly pass the proposed bill, then quickly make use of their right to “opt-out.” But as shown by an August 2009 Gallup poll, five of the ten states with the highest amount of citizens without health care are in the Southeast, and no state from the South is in the top ten with the least amount of citizens uninsured. Once these states “opt-out,” they will simply remain in the same position. Worse yet, those who depended on a national health care plan will be alienated twice as badly as they were prior to any help, by their conservative local and state representation and by their national Democratic representation. So my question is, what’s the point?
So at the moment, the Democratic message seems simple: Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer need their “bipartisan” bill more than you need a doctor. Federal legislation on life or death topics that allows a state to withdraw isn’t worth the paper it is written on. Instead, it is a testament to how much more important it is as a politician to appear compassionate toward their colleagues’ positions and how foolish they believe their constituents to be. But the fact is, too many in this country aren’t that foolish, and too many demand substance from their leaders, not just a handshake. Instead, with such a ridiculous proposal, Senators Reid and Schumer are just going to find they exemplify the symbol of their party: the ass.
The Daily Gamecock > Viewpoints
‘Opt-out’ makes bill pointless
Sen. Schumer’s attempt to win bipartisan support for health care undermines true aim of reform
Published: Thursday, November 5, 2009
Updated: Wednesday, November 4, 2009
3 comments
Frank
I actually didn't mean to write it implying that the two were somehow connected. It's a valid point, I disagree with the remainder, but I appreciate the comment nonetheless.
Your name
I think the point of the opt-out option is to prove that republicans are not concerned with the well-being of good-natured, hard-working, educated citizens. (Christians and Rednecks don't count.)The right wing has garnered support from so many illiterate, ignorant people, that we will eventually see that "half" of society move into the dark ages. Now they will have their guns, but no public healthcare. Woohoo!Hooray for the progressives!
Alumni
This editorial article has a major factual error. The unemployment rate and uninsured rate are two different measurements. Though the people they represent overlap, there are those who are employed who do not have insurance and vice versa. Also, undocumented immigrants (illegals) represent about 25% of all uninsured. If your viewpoint argument were correct, then we would need only to employ the unemployed to fix the health-care problem -- without spending a $1-trillion!The "opt out" option is a misnomer and a misconception. Even if a state "opts out" of the plan, its citizens are still required to pay for it through elevated health insurance premiums, more expensive medical care and taxes. The main point that opponents of the current health insurance reform argue is that people do not trust the government anymore due to its runaway spending and borrowing. A deep recession is NOT the time to ask Americans to pay even more taxes for stuff someone else will use. People are trying to save; get out of debt; secure their jobs; keep their house; pay for their own health insurance; save for college; and take care of their families’ future. Businesses are trying to not go belly up! The current health care reform will NOT lower cost overall. People who now have health insurance (85% of the population) along with senior citizens (who are on Medicare and will see their health care program cut by $500-billion dollars) will be the ones subsidizing the newly insured. Also looming are the Cap and Trade (tax hike on energy) and the expiration of the Bush tax cuts. When all of these taxes hit around 2013, it will be tantamount to the largest tax increase in US history. Conveniently, most of these tax hikes will not go into effect till after the next presidential election. Their effects will not be fully felt until the next president is safely elected. How convenient.
