November 1, 2009
APPRECIATING THE MEANING OF 'OPTIONAL'.... The phrase "public option" has caused some confusion in some circles, but I'd like to think English-speaking adults are at least familiar with the word "option."
Jed Lewison flagged this unintentionally hilarious exchange between Sean Hannity and Dick Morris. It helps explain quite a bit about why conservatives seem so confused.
HANNITY: Harry Reid comes out today, says government option with the states' ability to opt-out and it will include a co-op.
MORRIS: Opt-out if the Feds feel that they have successfully offered an alternative. The feds can say, 'No, Alabama, you're not doing enough...
HANNITY: So it's not really an opt-out anyway?
MORRIS: It's not really an opt-out.
HANNITY: And it's not an individual -- an individual can't opt out.
MORRIS: Exactly.
HANNITY: It's the state that has to opt-out.
"An individual can't opt out." It's called a "public option." It's a subject that's been debated for a year. It's really not that complicated -- eligible consumers choose between competing public and private insurance plans. They pick the one that they like best.
The public plan, in other words, is optional. States, under the current proposal, can choose not to let residents have the choice, but for everyone else, eligible consumers could pick. It's why the word "option" appears right there in the name, "public option."
Jed added, "There is literally no way to make any sense whatsoever of Hannity's claim. Its connection with reality isn't tenuous. It's nonexistent."
—Steve Benen 8:35 AM
Permalink
| Trackbacks
| Comments (15)
LOL -- his objection is that the choice exists. In his world, folks aren't supposed to have a choice.
Posted by: theAmericanist on November 1, 2009 at 8:32 AM | PERMALINK
Sean Hannity is so dreamy , why he kills me .
Posted by: FRP on November 1, 2009 at 8:46 AM | PERMALINK
Great, I'm in Alabama. I get screwed again;>
Posted by: martin on November 1, 2009 at 8:56 AM | PERMALINK
This kind of exchange is obviously intentional, designed to confuse viewers so that they'll essentially throw up their hands about health care reform and walk away from the TV, drive down to the bar, and have a few beers and then engage in blurry, slurred conversation with other like-minded viewers about how Democrats are ruining the country and how did we ever let a dark man in the White House.
Posted by: terraformer on November 1, 2009 at 9:16 AM | PERMALINK
This kind of exchange is obviously intentional, designed to confuse viewers so that they'll essentially throw up their hands about health care reform and walk away
Bingo.
Posted by: shortstop on November 1, 2009 at 9:40 AM | PERMALINK
"States, under the current proposal, can choose not to let residents have the choice,..."
i.e., The Blue State Public Option -- our generation's Missouri Compromise.
Posted by: Chris on November 1, 2009 at 9:52 AM | PERMALINK
chuck grassley was quoted this summer as being against the public option because he wanted people to have a choice.
truly a wingnut confluence of ignorance, stupidity, and confusion - with a healthy dose of mendacity.
Posted by: mellowjohn on November 1, 2009 at 10:15 AM | PERMALINK
Wingnuts still watch Sean Hannity? Beck offers soooo much more bang for the viewing buck. Whether tearful tirades or cool chalkboard conspiracy diagrams, Beck gives the wingnuts what they want. Hannity seems seriously stuffy and out of touch by comparison.
Posted by: oh well on November 1, 2009 at 10:19 AM | PERMALINK
It's possible that blockhead Hannity meant that individuals don't have the ability to opt out of paying for the public option. If that's the case, my response is that I didn't have the ability to opt out of paying for Guantanamo Bay.
But you guys are probably right. They are probably trying to deliberately obfuscate. Or else (and this is a real possibility with Hannity and Morris) they are just too stupid to understand the plan and are just repeating what Roger Ailes has told them.
Posted by: Singularity on November 1, 2009 at 11:00 AM | PERMALINK
This kind of exchange is obviously intentional, designed to confuse viewers so that they'll essentially throw up their hands about health care reform and walk away...
Bingo indeed. Notice they never used the term "public option"? Meant to mess with lefty bloggers, too. They didn't say it because they weren't talking about it. They were "discussing" the "opt-out" clause. Don't know if they're right on the "The feds can say, 'No, Alabama, you're not doing enough..." bit, since I haven't read it, but they made sure to say "opt..." enough for everyone--including ours truly--to get the wrong idea about their wrong ideas...
Posted by: Meanie-meanie, tickle a person on November 1, 2009 at 12:45 PM | PERMALINK
Problem is that individuals can't "opt-in". If it was really a public option, I could opt-in. But I first have to get my employer to drop my coverage.
Posted by: tomj on November 1, 2009 at 2:02 PM | PERMALINK
I'm usually the first one on the dogpile when it comes to conservative idiocy, but this doesn't strike me as all that idiotic. Aren't they just talking about the individual mandate? If someone is mandated to buy insurance, couldn't that be construed as being unable to "opt out"?
Posted by: FlipYrWhig on November 1, 2009 at 4:46 PM | PERMALINK
I had to register just to add: I haven't read the bill, so I have no clue what's really in it. But to me, the fact that tax dollars pay for it means that I'm "opting" to pay for it regardless of my desire to be in the program.
Posted by: OpenMindedConserv on November 1, 2009 at 11:22 PM | PERMALINK
Terravormer
This kind of exchange is obviously intentional, designed to confuse viewers so that they'll essentially throw up their hands about health care reform and walk away
That is the way the GOP has always operated - get people to not want to take part.
Anybody remember 2000, when they told us all that there was no difference between the two candidates? There have never BEEN two candidates more opposite, and there they were telling us our vote didn't matter anyway, since we would get the same guy either way.
But that is only one example among many...
.
Posted by: SteveGinIL on November 2, 2009 at 2:15 AM | PERMALINK
Chris:
The Blue State Public Option -- our generation's Missouri Compromise.
Man, that is profound. In saying that, I assume you remember where THAT led.
That sheds so much light on how far we've not come as a nation. Red state vs blue states or Blue-Grey. What the eff have we accomplished?
Consider then the EU and how far they've come in 65 years - less than half the time. It is discouraging, isn't it?
But Europe had its Red State-Blue State-Orange State-etc., for a LONG time before they learned. Do we have to go through what they did, before the crazies wake up and smell our common humanity?
.
Posted by: SteveGinIL on November 2, 2009 at 2:30 AM | PERMALINK