(noon. – promoted by ek hornbeck)
Crossposted at Daily Kos
Today on ABC’s Top Line, co-host David Chalian asked Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) if he would “opt-out” of the public option for his state if the measure passed. Pawlenty dodged: “Well, I don’t know if we would opt out but I personally would like to opt out because I don’t like government run health care.” But Chalian persisted, and ultimately, Pawlenty said that he would oppose the public option for Minnesota:
CHALIAN: But you would lead a charge in your state to opt out if that was an option available?
PAWLENTY: I think so because I don’t like government run health care.
Sorry Minnesota. Looks like your Asshat Governor wants you to buy for profit insurance and like it, if you can afford it.
More, with analysis and my take on the Faux Reform that is the Opt Out Cop Out below the fold.
While he assembles his team of Bush Jr and McCain maverick advisors in anticipation of a 2012 Presidential run, Tim Pawlenty (Governor of Minnesota, who deserves so much better) has decided to take a stand against non-profit insurance. This proves once again that Republicans are bad at math and fiscal Conservatives are full of it and use the phrase as cover for their corporatist agenda.
Pawlenty is bad at math and polls:
A poll shows Gov. Tim Pawlenty running far behind President Obama in a head-to-head match-up for 2012.
The national survey by Public Policy Polling shows Obama leading Pawlenty 50 percent to 30 percent — the weakest performance by far among the four presumed Republican candidates in hypothetical contests posed by the polling firm.
According to the poll, 72% of Respondents to the poll have no idea who Pawlenty is. Now he is going to be remembered as the jerk who wants to take away the very popular Publc Option from a whole state because he doesn’t like it. The voters in his state obviously come seoond to what Pawlenty wants.
Oh, and never mind the fact that voters nationally LOVE the idea of non-profit competition for the Insurance Cartels, Pawlenty needs to shore up his wingnut creds, right?
This is the upside as some of the more shrewd proponents of the Opt-Out system see it, in my opinion.
You see, the upside for Democrats politically to an Opt-Out Public Option system is that states ran by wingnut Republicans is that people in a state like Minnesota will be furious that their elected officials will not give them a Public Option like their friends in, oh, say New York might get. States with Dems in charge on the State level will get a Public Option and love it, and their friends in states that opt out will hear about it and conclude that the only way to get a public option for themselves is to vote out the wingnuts who opted out, thus ensuring Republican defeats in upcoming elections. Think about it, if Kansas opts out and Missouri gets a Public Option, the people in Kansas who hear about how much cheaper and better it is will be PISSED, and that anger will be directed at the Politicians who denied them a public option for ideological reasons (when the truth is, they are just shills to the insurance cartels). Said voters will throw the Republicans out off office at best, and at worst the Dems will have themselves a Wedge issue that hurts Republicans nationally when they are already week as it is.
The downside to the Opt Out system, though, is much greater as far as good policy is concerned, and that is more important than electoral success, in my opinion.
Among the downsides to the Opt-Out Public Option is that it will NOT achieve universal competition. Instead we will have carved out a even more Balkinized map of America, and states that are Governed by knuckle dragging neocon neanderthals will be harming their constituents when it need not be that way. I guarantee that Louisiana, Texas and South Carolina will opt out because their wingnut Governor’s want to earn more wingnut points with the teabag crowd they pander to, but that will come at the detriment of LIVES, and that is the important part, the MOST important part, isn’t it?
Further, the Opt Out system is too nice to the insurance cartels. I have heard much more concerns for the insurers than I have for the underinsured and uninsured, and usually I take that as a sign that the person in question is a sell out. But why should their constituents suffer because of it? I thought the point of health care reform was just that, to reform health care for as many people as possible, not to decrease the deficit or to create another wedge issue? Maybe I was mistaken.
The real joke behinnd Opt-Out vs Trigger is that the Opt Out is weak, but even then it is too strong for the Insurers and their bought of political puppets, who squeal at even the possibility that competition is coming their way. Sen. Snowe is just one shill, buut the fact remains that a trigger should have been pulled 30 years ago. Waiting longer will cost LIVES, and isn’t a life more valuable than 30 pieces of silver?
My point is, without a true Public Option that EVERYONE has access to regardless of where in America they live there will NOT be as much cost control as we could have had otherwise, and that is BAD POLICY, in my opinion. History will not judge us on how many Republicans approve of this reform or by how much we shaved off the deficit with it, but by how effective the policy was and by how many lives it saved. To do less is BAD POLCIY, in my view, and will haunt the Democrats and President Obama for signing it much more than upsetting the same people who won’t vote for it anyway would.
But back to Pawlenty. I would say it is the height of tone deaf stupidity to think that somehow there is a reward to placating the no-mongers in his own party when the Public Option is overwhelmingly popular nationally as well as in Minnesota, as I presume it is. If this is the kind of advice Pawlenty is getting from his new Bushie advisors, expect Palenty to crash and burn early, and expect any other Politician who follows this strategy to suffer for it.
That suffering, though, should NOT be endured by a whole state because of the ambitions of Conservative politicians in their states. In my opinion, the Opt-Out is BAD POLICY, and though it may help Democrats achieve greater gains in upcoming elections, the loss it may take from the American people may be counted in lives lost, and thus it should be a non starter, and passed over for better policy, one that is available to every American, not just those who don’t live in states that are Governed by the politically tone deaf, ambitious or corrupt Conservatives who are ALWAYS WRONG.
Also crossposted at The Progressive Electorate.com