Public option, ‘opting out’ are mutually exclusive

W ASHINGTON — There is an air of desperate improvisation to Sen. Harry Reid’s scheme to pass a “public option” as part of health care reform, but at the same time provide an easy exemption for any state that objects to it. The warning flags ought to be flying for anyone who can count to three — let alone 60.

The Democratic majority leader embraced this odd idea in hopes of satisfying two conflicting imperatives. On one hand, he is under relentless pressure to satisfy the labor-left of his party in Washington, where a government-sponsored insurance plan has become the symbolic prize in the game, and back home in Nevada, where he needs union support to survive a scary election next year. On the other, he needs 60 votes to pass any kind of health-care legislation, so he must provide some comfort for moderate Democrats and possibly one or two Republicans.

Rather than bring a bill without the public option to the Senate floor and then hope to merge it in conference with a House bill almost certain to include such a provision, Reid bent to the political pressure and put his own needs first.

Even if he could make the tactic work, there is every reason for liberals, of all people, to reject it.

Consider the precedent that would be set if a major piece of social legislation were to be passed with a states’ rights provision. Imagine, for example, FDR had signed the first Social Security law with the proviso that any states with Republican governors and legislatures could exempt themselves from its coverage.

This might have seemed a minimal concession to conservative opinion.

But what would have followed? How long before some states would have demanded an exemption from the wage and hour law that established a minimum wage? And what about the clamor in a broad swath of the country when the first civil rights law was passed?

The principle behind almost all liberal legislation is that there are certain values fundamental enough that they should be enforceable at the national level, even if a significant minority of voters or a certain number of states disagree.

That issue was settled in the realm of economic policy during FDR’s second term, after the Supreme Court seated enough new justices to uphold the New Deal measures an earlier conservative majority had struck down. In the area of civil rights, Lyndon Johnson and a Democratic Congress put an end to the doctrine of states’ rights. Are we now to reopen those issues in order to make it easier for this generation of Democrats to short-circuit the legislative process?

These hypotheticals may seem abstract. But in the real world, the consequences would likely be all too obvious.

To take but one example: If a health-care reform with an opt-out provision were to become law this year or next, one of the first states you might expect to exempt itself would be Texas. Republicans now control the governorship and both houses of the Legislature, and the state had no trouble rejecting candidate Barack Obama.

But Texas is also a state with glaring differences among its residents. There are literally millions of the poor, of Hispanics and African-Americans who give their votes to Democrats. Are the Democrats running Washington prepared to say to them (and residents of who knows how many other states): Sorry about this, but you don’t get what the rest of us get?

I’m not entirely convinced that the public option is as essential as liberals seem to think it is. But if they are right, I don’t see how they can justify abandoning it for an uncertain number of people who have the bad luck to live in states with conservative governors and legislatures.

If a compromise is needed to get the bill to the Senate floor, far better to try Sen. Olympia Snowe’s suggestion of a trigger mechanism that would activate a public option if private insurance policies at affordable rates were not broadly available.

No one should be denied coverage options by virtue of their residence or place of birth.

David Broder’s e-mail address is davidbroder@washpost.com.

Talk to us

More in Opinion

RGB version
Editorial cartoons for Wednesday, Dec. 6

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

The Everett City Council approved a $375,000 settlement Wednesday with a former firefighter who alleged racist harassment went unaddressed in the department.
Editorial: Fosse shouldn’t have to choose between elected roles

The Everett City Council can bar its members from other offices, but should not do so retroactively.

Comment: Ranked-choice voting the big winnter on election day

More cities and counties — and two states — are using RCV and instilling more confidence among voters.

Comment: Democracy survived Nixon; Trump is a greater threat

A special. prosecutor in the Nixon investigation is concerned about how society has changed since then.

Burke: Dilemma in donations is in where to put your money

With a range of worthy causes — charitable and political — how should one weigh where the need is greatest?

Everett officer acted properly in arrest; The Herald didn’t

I read The Herald daily, as I have for some time, and… Continue reading

Heed warnings from Trump’s former backers

It’s not about Republicans vs. Democrats, left vs. right, liberal vs. conservative.… Continue reading

Ben Ramirez is doused with water by teammates after the AquaSox beat the Emeralds to clinch a playoff berth on Monday, Sept. 4, 2023, in Everett. (Photo provided by AquaSox)
Editorial: City’s $1 million an investment in Everett baseball

Contracts for preliminary work on an AquaSox stadium honor team’s 40 years of family fun and tradition.

civic health white board
Editorial: Improving civic health starts by coming to table

Efforts locally and at the state level seek to counter the incivility that has mired public discourse.

From the bodycam footage of Everett police officer Ryan Greely and footage from Molly Wright, Wright films officer Greely before he arrests her for obstructing a law enforcement officer on Aug. 10, 2023 in Everett, Washington. (Screenshot from a video provided by Molly Wright)
Editorial: Duties on both sides of camera during arrests

The right to record police activity is clear, but so is the need to respect the safety of officers and others.

Macro photo of tooth wheel mechanism with imprinted RECEIVE, GIVE concept words
Editorial: Get back into charitable habit for Giving Tuesday

Inflation sapped donations for charities last year; things may be looking up this year for more.

Comment: Seniors, kids share in rising rates of poverty

But too often, the solution is seen as taking from one to help the other. That’s not necessary.

Support local journalism

If you value local news, make a gift now to support the trusted journalism you get in The Daily Herald. Donations processed in this system are not tax deductible.