Pass the Public Option with an "opt out" - and DARE the Republicans state-by-state...

[DeadElephant_ORG]

to turn down what will quickly become a very popular program. It's one thing to be "the party of no" before insurance reform is passed. It's something else again to refuse, on principle, to participate after reform is the fact. Any Republican governor or state assembly person who refuses to let their constituents have access to government health insurance which most Americans enjoy will be severely punished for their righteousness.

"Opt-out" is much more than just a compromise to get more Democrats on board. It's the ultimate hammer on those who would "just say 'no'".

-----------------------------------------------



LoveHerLiberally.com

[MNDemNY]

1. At the expense of innocents who's only crime is living in a state like Mississippi.

Yea, that would be good.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

3. Do Mississippians not elect the people that would opt them out? (nt)

[sandnsea]

5. MS has a Dem controlled legislature

So go figure that one out.

[angee_is_mad]

35. Southern Democrats

are a totally different breed. Hell that's the reason why we are having so much trouble now.

[bunnysoft]

51. So what should happen to the 43% of Mississipi voters who voted for Obama?

Should they be exempted of the "opt-out"? And how about those Mississipians who did not vote at all?

[Clio the Leo]

12. And as a malicious Democrat who lives in TN....

.... I say bring it the F*CK on!!!

You dont need to worry ..... our Blue Dog Governor tried to turn down stimulus money and the public turned on him so angrily he had to apologize the next day.

Go to Recovery.gov and count the number of states who have refused to accept stimulus money and your fears for the poor southerners (which is appreciated) will be allayed.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

15. oh ...yes! n/t

[rvablue]

43. +1! Because as teabaggers and their ilk start to see the rest

of America benefitting from it, they will begin to pressure their Governors and state legislatures to "opt in."

How many times did we see signs at these "events" saying, "Don't want the government messing with my Medicare."

What we are dealing with on many levels is blind hate, ignorance, and too much adherence to the lunacy of Limbaugh and Beck. Once folks see that, oh, people are being covered, they can see a doctor when they are sick and not go broke, they are going to want a piece of the action.

[thatsrightimirish]

2. I prefer a public option for everyone

Even though I'm very confident California will opt in, what will happen if I need to move to Arizona or Utah?

[sandnsea]

4. I have to stay in Oregon for health care now

It's just something I accept. Not that I'd consider moving to AZ or UT for any reason anyway. But some people like living in states with no benefits.

[thatsrightimirish]

6. But what if I'm forced to move

Job relocation for example.

[sandnsea]

7. Forced? Does not compute

Seriously. I don't work in places I would hate to live in. In fact, if Alabama had free health care tomorrow, I wouldn't move there.

[demwing]

37. you might move to Utah

it has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country, down near 6%

[quakerboy]

16. This would bring health care to all those states

And make them do it to themselves. And if they do that, it will make it a lot harder for them to retake the house and senate to repeal health care.

Oregon would opt in, as would California. And Utah would probably opt out, with Idaho and others. And 2 things will happen... First, The insurance companies will scramble to make all the opted out states as affordable as possible, to prove their way is better. And when they do revert to kind and go back to making a buck at the cost of lives, the people of those states will insist on opting in. And the thugs standing in the way will get run over.

Its hard, because some states would continue to suffer, short term. And that is hard to accept, even if they actively bring it on themselves. On the other hand, they are likely to be better off in the long term because of the transformation it would seem sure to bring to their politics.

[annabanana]

24. +1 . . . n/t

[Ed76638]

8. Hell fuck no.

Enough with these goddamn games. We have 51 votes. It's called reconsiliation. These bitch Dems should use it.

[vaberella]

23. You don't know how many votes we have.

We NEED 51 for "reconCiliation" but we have 13 conservadems of 60 Dems, meaning we could be below 51 to about 47. And as a matter of fact Opt-out is the best. If Repubs don't like it, they can opt-out and their State can kick them out of office.

[Kermitt Gribble]

9. Yeah, lets's play political games with the lives of tens of millions.

You're a genius! :puke:

[quakerboy]

17. They are are already doing that. And they may not let any of us have it

if we make everyone take it. If we could pass the bill without an "opt out", then you are right. But if having an "opt out" would get a better bill passed that would otherwise not pass, it would be worth it. Better that some get a public option than that none get it.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

18. exactly --assuming some compromise will be necessary...

which is very likely, I would much prefer to give up "opt-out" than, say, making the public option only available to a small percentage of the population who are below an income line, or "Healthcare Co-operatives" or a "Trigger". We only need to negotiate enough to get the Blue Dog dems to go along with a vote of cloture, and not join a Republican filibuster. Then we get a ROBUST public option, from which, I believe, few if ANY states would ever opt out from.

[quakerboy]

19. Thats the idea

Though I have little doubt that a good number of states would opt out. For a little while. Until the people had a chance to have their say.

I can see the benefits of making these states own their own decision. It makes it harder for a party of demagogues to lie to the people about what it is. The key is to make it a nationwide thing, and an opt out thing. Not single state or regional co-op watered down nonsense.

[Kermitt Gribble]

25. Keep compromising.

"Better that some get a public option than that none get it." You can count on states that turned blue in 2008 to turn back to red in 2012 when these states opt out. Most voters will view it as being abandoned by the spineless Democratic party.

None of the 'public options' currently proposed aren't worth compromising for in the first place.

[quakerboy]

32. If public option is cut out, a la Baucus

under your argument, those states are gone anyway. It really will be the spineless Democratic party abandoning them. At least if we make their Republican state legislators opt them out, we have an argument that it was them not us. As is, all the blame is on our shoulders.

In the mean time, if none of the options currently proposed are worth anything, whats the point? We are all screwed anyway. This whole argument becomes null and void, and we both might as well move to Canada and hope that the great snowy North doesn't follow the US too quickly in its decline.

What is your alternative that will save lives, not bankrupt me, not alienate the 21-30 crowd, and not lose us states in 2012?

[Kermitt Gribble]

41. The public option being considered

won't even be implemented until 2013. Red states can opt out and declare victory for at least the next 3 years. The public option also won't be open to everyone, so how many people will even realize that they're missing anything? The only solution is to not give the states the option, but give individuals the option to opt in - give everyone the option of enrolling in Medicare.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

45. AGREED: delaying the start of the public option is NOT acceptable

but that's a separate aspect of the bill from a state-wide opt-out provision. I appreciate your point that the two provisions have a potential negative synergy that could be dangerous.

[Arkana]

33. Republicans are already doing it--and the beauty of opt-out is

that no one--NO ONE--will opt out.

We think that Republican and Blue Dog Dem governors would opt out, but we're wrong. No one would.

[SIMPLYB1980]

10. K&R

[Oregone]

11. Sure, because mandated private insurance is good enough for Republicans, eh?

Come on now. That just amounts to stupid policy.

[Clio the Leo]

13. Beautiful flag ....... beautiful OP! NT

[Jakes Progress]

14. Sounds like you live in Massachusetts. nt

[cornermouse]

20. For some reason I already know you're not going to listen, but.

If the opt out includes opting out of mandatory insurance, its not going to be that unpopular. A lot of people are having trouble paying their bills now. They're barely scraping by. Obama wants to add another monthly bill. Call it a house of cards that tumble down, call it the straw that breaks the camel's back. Call it whatever but if it is what pushes them over from barely making it into unable to cover their bills they going to get real mad and I suspect the people in Washington are so far removed from the "barely making it" status that they won't include that group in those who get help. That, another monthly bill that they have no choice about, IS how they will see it and if republicans can get them out of it they aren't going to be as angry as you think they should be. They already know what its like to live without health insurance. Unfortunately, some of them have lived that way for that it has become the norm. Putting food on the table and having a roof over their heads (something that an increasing number of people in this nation are having trouble doing) is probably a little more important than having health insurance.

All this "public option", "opt out" is just putting another layer of paint over the real problem and saying the problem is fixed and that's just not true. We needed single payer/universal healthcare and they failed us.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

26. I'm listening. And, yes, single payer. You see the votes for that this season? n/t

[Dawgs]

27. How the fuck are you going to get single-payer?

:eyes:

[cornermouse]

28. How the ______ do you think

you're going to convince people that an extra mandatory bill is just what they need or want when they're barely making ends meet? You know that they aren't going to get help because they'll be considered as above the acceptable level of income whether they are or not. What they're doing now isn't going to work like you think it is.

[RichGirl]

21. Dare???? And what state do you live in?

Are you willing to gamble? The republican party has no soul. You think they wouldn't dare...because why??? What kind of punishment will they get? They have done outrageous things and where is the punishment? They don't care what we think or want or need.

Here in Virginia, the rep McDonnell is up 8 pts!!! After all the work of turning this state blue...it would be a real kick in the pants to not get the public option.

[eridani]

22. Actually, opting out will benefit Repukes, because the public option is delayed until 2013

That gives us two election cycles to go through explaining why health care still sucks.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

30. point taken - if it's "opt-out", the program has to start NOW, not four years from now.

Your comment has me worried. If we blow that, it will be exactly what happened over the August recess, only worse and spread across election cycles.

[andym]

29. If it's necessary to get a "universal" public option based on Medicare, then it's better

than nothing. Because if we don't start down the yellow brick road to single-payer now, we may not get another chance for quite some time.

[eridani]

31. That would be actual MEDICARE, as it is already set up

Not some stupid four tier boondoggle supporting useless intermediaries.

[andym]

38. That couldn't work-- even HR676 --Medicare for All is not just Medicare as it is "already set up."

It's based on it, but includes improvements, and it includes new funding. At a minimum universal Medicare requires expanding the program 5-6X and funding it. Total healthcare cost is 2.5 trillion/year right now-- that's almost as much as the current entire federal budget (3.1 trillion). Expanding Medicare is not trivial. Paying Medicare rates would either require new taxes (see HR676 for 5% increase in payroll tax etc) or force people to pay actual Medicare cost (not the subsidized costs that 65+ pay), which I think would be fair. Also, remember that basic Medicare only pays 80% of cost, it does not include dental etc. But, HR676 does include dental and podiatrists etc. That's far better than Medicare as it's "already set up."

So, Medicare as it is "already set up" is not workable. However, Medicare for All (HR676) is a well thought out way to expand Medicare (but again it is not Medicare as it's "already setup"). That sounds workable to me. In fact, I've spent some effort lobbying congress for it.

BUT
If the senate only has 51 or so votes for a even a "public option", it seems quite unlikely that a senate version of HR676 could pass right now-- but what is needed is something that will lead to HR676-like solution in the near future. A universally open public option based on Medicare +5% is a good start, IMHO.

[eridani]

39. I don't agree. I think it would be workable at least on a temporary basis

--and would lead to a lot of pressure for the improvements onf HR 676. I mean jeebus! If you are going to dump up to a trillion into the system as a subsidy, why not just subsidize Medicare with its 3% overhead instead of the same private insurers with their 30% overhead?

If the public option were in reality universal, I'd consider supporting it, though I regard a delay until 2013 as making it unworkable. But it isn't Most people will not be allowed to buy in to it.

[Sebastian Doyle]

34. How about this - let the Confederate stuck in the 18th century states "opt out"

And the rest of us get SINGLE PAYER NOW!

It's the Repukes that are bitching about the "goddamn government socialized commie health care". So if they aren't going to have it anyway, why should those of us in the SANE states have to settle for a half-assed Massachusetts style Romneycare scam, or a "public option" that maybe 30 people will be able to get in fucking 2015.

They get what they want - continued raping and pillaging from the corporations.

We get what we want - REAL reform.

Who the Hell can argue with that?

[SKKY]

36. That's exactly what I'm saying, and have been since I first heard about the "Opt-out" option...

..lets see just how "conservative" they want to be.

[Gman]

40. Every state south of Pennsylvania and

east of Missouri will be without coverage

[Bluenorthwest]

42. I have trouble with the New Logic

A short time ago, it was said that a national mandated purchase was essential to attain affordable coverage. Now, suddenly, it fine to allow entire States to refuse the mandate that others must live with. The States that 'opt out' will weaken the rest of our buying power. Last week it was very important that 100% be mandated to buy in. Now, suddenly, the mandate is not so important. So I say the individual mandate should be dropped. If millions can take a pass in Texas, one in Oregon should not be fined for not buying in.
Either we need a universal mandate, or we don't. It can not be both ways. If States can be allowed to opt out, clearly universal mandate is not needed for anyone but the Insurance Companies. Seems to me in that set up, only my State should have to power to mandate.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

44. States should not be allowed to opt out of the universal mandate

Thank you for your point, because I now see a critical distinction in what I'm proposing here:

I'm arguing that they be allowed to opt out of the public option only - and not out of the entire health-care reform bill.

[brooklynite]

46. Nobody is proposing "opt out" as a preferred choice...

But its irresponsible to say that, given the choice of "opt out" FOR NOW, vs no bill passing because (for whatever reason) there's enough opposition to a PO to prevent passage, it's better to stand on principle then to pass something that can be improved on later.

[SHRED]

47. Bullshit

You would sacrifice a stronger PO in favor of a political game?

You have got to be kidding.


---

[backscatter712]

48. The beautiful thing is that opting-out simply highlights Rethug and Blue Dog douchebaggery.

Let 'em try. Watch as the states that stay in get lower health care costs, better economies and fewer people thrown under the health care bus.

It won't take long before their citizens of opt-out states are in front of their capitols with tar & feathers.

Yes, I'd rather pass an all-states-in public option, but like I mentioned in other threads, compared with triggers & co-ops, the opt-out proposal doesn't completely give away the store.

[Better Believe It]

49. PO = Puny Option

Without a state op-out it will only cover about 5% of the population!

[DCBob]

50. Agree. I doubt many if any will opt out.

And if they do it will look absurb and be exttremely controversial. Opt out may be the best strategy.