Upping the Stakes: Include a State-by-State Opt Out Clause as Part of Upton or Landrieu

Why not? Make Red State Democrats vote against the proposition that their own citizens should have the right to exit themselves from this disastrous law.

A bill along these lines could be made harder to vote against, by specifying that only some of Obamacare can be opted out of, the most unpopular parts of it. Thus, Democrats would be on record as voting against a state opt-out, for example, of the forced cancellations, and the taxes on large plans, the conscience-violating birth control/abortion mandate, etc.

Don't include the insured-up-to-26 stuff. Get rid of the bulk of it, and the rest will sink on its own.

I had this idea on a compromise between Upton and Landrieu, as regards the provision that new customers may buy in.

How about that each insurer has a cap of how many new customers they can enroll under the old plans, limited to (let's say) the number of previous policy holders. Thus, an insurer would have to offer the plans to its old customers, and an equal number of new customers seeking the same plan.

Thus, a lottery is basically created. More people will want to sign up for the old plans than the companies will be willing to offer.

You might say, "A lottery? That's terrible. People hate lotteries. People hate having it left up to random chance whether they'll be permitted to buy a better policy, or forced by Obamacare to buy a worse one."

That's the point. I want the spectacle of people trying to buy a better policy, but being told by their government they can't, because they didn't win the lucky lottery number permitting them to. (Or, of course: because they didn't have the connections to get a rigged lottery number.)

There's a tactic in communist agitation, and Alinksyite agitation: Put pressure on their internal contradictions until they break apart. Pressure them on their lie -- their original lie, that people with insurance would not be harmed in order to provide insurance to others -- until they are forced to confess it and affirmatively embrace it.

Make them admit: "You're goddamned right we ordered the Code Red on current policyholders."

We have to get into that mindset of political guerrilla warfare. Many people favor the straight-up massed-forces frontal assault. I understand that preference. I suppose it seems more manly and heroic.

And honest.

But I don't understand the dismissal of sneakier Alinskyite commando strikes. If the main battle cannot be won, why not begin fighting smaller battles?

And even if the main battle cannot be won, there is still no reason not to start smaller fights, both at the main battle line and deep behind it.

Don't let the vote against something on the pretext that they're doing so just to help the sick and poor. Make them specifically vote to tax the middle class.

The left is very good at designing these trap-votes, where they claim to just be proposing something common-sensical but have broader implications than they'd ever confess. The GOP has to start forcing the Democrats to vote themselves either into or out of these traps.

posted by Ace at 12:53 PM

| Access Comments