“Opting Out” Undermines Core Democratic Values.
Submitted by Tom Rinaldo on February 26, 2008 - 1:42pm.
Democratic politics | Economics | Education | Health Care | Social Security
Most core Republican Party special interests, with a partial exception for some elements of the Religious Right, essentially believe in Social Darwinism. They heap high praise on “The Individual” because they usually are, as individuals, heaped high with special privileges. If not they are wealth groupie wannabes. Which is why Mike Huckabee meets with such disdain from the Republican establishment – he sometimes gives a nod toward right wing populism. The Republican establishment prefers an ideological argument that supports “every man for himself”, since the members of their establishment start out with big advantages in that scenario. Even IF “a rising tide lifts all boats”, the boatless eventually drown, but that is not a yacht owners problem, in a sink or swim world.
The living core of the Democratic Party though celebrates the common good, and our common humanity. It is the Democratic Party that strung America’s social safety net to keep the less fortunate among us from falling through prosperity’s cracks to shatter on the rocks below. And the Republican Party has never ceased their efforts to cut widening hole in that social safety net, stealing the twine that protects the least of us to tie down their own high privileges.
The “Opting Out” option is the knife the Right wields when they try to cut up social safety nets. The “Opting Out” option is how they hobbled the ability of Organized Labor to organize workers to effectively counter the concentrated power of mega capital interests. They call it “Right to Work” legislation. The “Opting Out” option is the battering ram they are using to bring about the collapse of public education in this nation. They call it “School Vouchers”. The “Opting Out” option is their plot to divert multi billions of dollars that our government saves for all citizens for retirement into capital “investments” to fund the growth of their multinational corporate empires. They call it privatization of social security.
“Opting Out” is divide and conquer. We need the unity of many to oppose the power of a few. Once that simple solidarity is compromised, the peeling off of the support necessary to guarantee the basic rights and needs of all starts. Siren calls to narrow short term personal interests pierce and tantalize while less immediate appeals to the long term common good don’t get past call screening.
The privileged in America advance their interests through “cherry picking. Those advantaged enough to send children to private schools want their school taxes back to enrich private schools with extra curricular activities, while those who can’t afford private schools, or whose children aren’t deemed acceptable enough by private schools, remain in public schools unable to update their text books with modern curriculum.
No where is cherry picking more obvious than in the insurance industry. The less inclusive insurance providers must be, the more profitable insurance providers will be. Create a system that does not insure that all will be provided insurance, and the games begin to game that system for all the insurance providers. But even leaving “cherry picking” aside, the economy of scale always requires that our social safety nets be supported by the inclusion of all of our citizens, or they will be bled dry caring for the needs of those most dependent upon them, who have no other options, while those who are blessed with other options are independent enough not to care. And then that net grows tattered, and then that net fails.
Like with Social Security, like with Public Schools; affordable Universal Health Care will never be universal AND affordable until we mandate that health care be affordable AND universal. “Opting In” is a core Democratic principle. The people united will never be defeated. Or, harkening back to yet an earlier generation possessed with revolutionary zeal; United we stand, divided we fall.

Democratic Party as we know it by promising new "non-partisan" ways of changing America.
His health care plan allows Americans (probably the well and the wealthy) to opt out.
He says he is willing to consider paying Americans with school vouchers to opt out of public education .
He apparently thinks America can simply opt out of Iraq.
He also thinks American forces can simply opt in to Pakistan, by opting out of respect for the government of another nuclear power.
He evidently thinks it's fine to pay Super-delegates as a way to entice them to opt out of their obligations to the good of the Democratic Party.
Unfortunately, with all of this opting out, Senator O has little hope of bringing about collective progressive change if by some chance he were to be elected President.
Great diary, Tom.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark still could be the national security candidate.

...if BO pulls off a miracle, I have no hope whatsoever that he will further progressive core values......therefore will "opt out" myself
"The Right always knows who its enemy is" Lance Mannion

Obama requires employers to cover their workers and requires parents to cover their children. The only question is if jobless and self employed must be forced to purchase health care. The difference between Obama and Clinton is very small on this issue, it's just that the politicos from both candidates use this as one of the few differences they think they can use for their advantage.
Edwards, Clinton and Obama all used the same guy, Jacob Hacker, for the basic structure of their health care plans, which is why they are so similar. Note that he does recommend mandates, but only as a minor point. Here is what he had to say on the issue today:
A mandate isn't mandatory
The Clinton-Obama debate over requiring individuals to buy insurance obscures more important discussions on universal healthcare.
...
I do not believe that the individual mandate is essential to healthcare reform, as its supporters suggest. That's because Obama and Clinton have rightly rejected reform based on the individual purchase of insurance, choosing instead to allow most people to obtain subsidized coverage through their employers. By emphasizing the individual mandate, Clinton is shifting attention from this fundamental and popular feature of her (and Obama's) approach and actually may be hurting the cause she cares so deeply about.The cornerstone of both Clinton's and Obama's plans is the same: Employers must provide coverage to their workers or enroll them in a new, publicly overseen insurance pool. People in this pool could choose either a public plan modeled after Medicare or from regulated private plans. Both candidates have promised help for middle- and lower-income Americans, and both have said they will cut costs through administrative streamlining, prevention and quality improvement.
So why has attention focused on the individual mandate? Partly because candidates and their allies search for differences. But also because of the media and political interest in the experience of Massachusetts, which implemented an individual mandate.
Obama's .... not so much.
The rising cost of healthcare is not a playtoy for politics. Either you believe everyone should contribute .... or you don't.
That Obama still thinks some may find it unaffordable says a lot about his confidence (or lack thereof) in his ability to actually produce an affordable plan.
But then, I don't believe in privatizing Social Security either.

The cornerstone of Hillary's plan is NOT what he says it is, and it is different from O's plan.
While O's plan specifically "require(s) all employers to contribute towards health coverage for their employees or towards the cost of the public plan", Hillary's plan is far less dependent on employers. Her plan requires only large firms "to provide health insurance or contribute to the cost of the system" and "offers small businesses tax incentives to continue or begin to offer coverage".
The cornerstone of Obama's plan may well be his proposed government requirement on all businesses, large and small; but the cornerstone of Hillary's plan is that she offers everyone, businesses included, the opportunity to purchase health insurance from the same system that Federal Employees and members of Congress use. Obama makes a similar offer, but he fails to make it more attractive than the purchase of insurance from any of the existing 1500 insurance companies.
Hillary's plan will only subsidize those who purchase from the Federally controlled system, while Obama proposes to make it easy for people to decide to opt out of that large and efficient system through offering discounts to people no matter which insurance company they select. Hillary's plan is a giant step in the direction of single-payer, and the huge efficiencies to be therefrom derived. Obama's plan is a giant giveaway to the existing health insurance companies.
See http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/14621
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark still could be the national security candidate.

And that is one reason why I feel Obama is running to the right of Hillary.