Forget the healthcare "Public Option"...it's the "State Option" that should be getting lots of attention here in Alabama.
The Public Option would extend Medicaid-like coverage to most of the uninsured population. But the "state option" is also part of the negotiations over the legislation...and it would allow states to say "no thanks" to the public option (an alternative plan would require states to "opt-in" to be part of the public option).
Ask yourself: which side would Alabama come down on?
Both of our U.S. Senators are Republicans, as are virtually all of the seven House members. Rep. Artur Davis is the closest thing Alabama has to an actual Democrat, and he's running for Governor, so his vote will probably swerve to the right. The other two "democrats" are of the blue-dog variety, and are as likely to side against the public option as most Republicans.
I don't know exactly how a state opting out or in would work...a vote of the delegation? A vote by the population? The Democratic-majority Legislature? The Governor is a Republican, and by extention, so are the appointed heads of state agencies like Medicaid. Whatever method is used, the congressmen and other elected state officials will have a powerful influence over the vote. 
So, if it happens...will Alabama opt out? And if so, what will the state do--if anything--to replace the health insurance they've rejected for the state's uninsured?
And let's not forget we have a little election underway. What do the candidates for governor think? Do they think Alabama should opt-out? And how much money will flow to the candidates from the insurance companies? We probably won't be able to answer that last one, of course, since Alabama is a state of PAC-to-PAC transfers. Just a few things to think about this coming week.
This is an excellent example of how actual democracy is subverted by representative democracy.
ReplyDeleteThe relatively simple calculations you use in this piece highlight how broad policy is governed in back rooms by shady characters using every day mathematics. The question you ask is, given that we have only two unknowns - democrans and republicrats, how will their positions affect policy?
It is fortunate that we have a free press who can bring these machinations in front of the voting public for consideration. But I find it worrisome that the voting public, despite countless political scandal to the contrary, still believes as if the two party system is only working on behalf of their constituency. When clearly the reality is that political calculations are made solely for the benefit of the parties that make the calculations, and absolutely NOT for the benefit of the voting public.
We need multiple strong and robust "third party" candidates so that the voting public has a better chance in this crap-shoot!
lane holcombe