A bill with a strong public option looks to me like a bill that can't pass. What am I missing?
That the Reid proposal is a weak public option with state opt-outs? Here's the beauty of it. No one really knows what a public option would ultimately mean. No one really knows what will become of much of these ideas in practice. And that is a real problem for reformers: the unintended consequences could be profound and yet they are also unknowable.
A conservative can say: therefore do nothing. The problem with that is that the status quo is extremely uncomfortable - fiscally and in terms of actual, you know, healthcare. In an insecure economy, it's more than uncomfortable, it's nerve-wracking.
So a conservative can also say: well, let's try it out in a few states and see what happens.
The point of federalism is its abilty to break out of the classic political dilemma: how to change when we are not entirely sure of what change could bring with it? Well: find out. Over time, let's see just how dreadful or helpful a public option is. Let's see if it really does kill off the private sector; let's see if it kills off medical excellence and choice. And let those decisions be made at the most accountable and measurable level: in the states.
It's weird, isn't it, that federalism is becoming an advantage for reform - marriage equality, ending the marijuana prohibition, the public option. But it always was. Conservatism, as I understand it, is not about resisting all change or defending an ideological purity. It's about the least worst, practically relevant solution to emerging problems.
We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to email@example.com.