What's the point of an "opt out" plan? That's like "A little bit pregnant"

[Armstead]

If that's what it takes to get a public option....well okay I'm willing to be somewhat pragmatic.

But it seems to me that giving states the ability to "opt out" is absolutely stupid.It's kind of like being a "little bit pregnant."

And, even from the standpoint of opponents of a public option it doesn't make much sense.

The residents of any state -- blue, red or purple -- are never going to uniformly agree on a public option. And states often cycle through governors and other elected officials. Suppose a state elects a republican governor who wants to opt out, and then a few years later elects a governor who wants to opt in again? Do the residents on a public plan lose their coverage and then get it back again?

What if a state holds a referendum and the vote is 50/50 or close? Should the half who vote for the public option retain the right to have it?

Just sounds to me like a recipe for a massive clusterf-k down the line.

[Autumn]

1. I don't know, this opt-out shit

is confusing as hell. :shrug: I'm at the point to where I think these idiots are doing nothing but trying to get something that is like a great big circle jerk going. Obama knows we need health care reform and promised it and he has my deepest sympathy for having to deal with these fucking morons. It seems to me they are just throwing up any shit that they can just to cover their asses. It becomes clearer by the day they are twisting their little minds into pretzels to avoid losing their pocket money. They make it as fucking difficult as they can.

[yourguide]

2. The opt-out is pretty brilliant actually.

I think we can all agree on a couple of things here...


1. polling shows the choice of a public option is very popular

2. The states that have the highest percentages of uninsured are red states

Essentially, the blue states (ironically with the lowest numbers of uninsured) will not opt out and with the public option being so popular and the high number of uninsured in red states, politicians will be committing political suicide if they vote to opt their state out.

You have as much a chance of states opting out of this as you had states turn down stimulus funds and the stimulus was far less popular.

[Armstead]

6. The problem, IMO is that it adds an unnecessary note of uncertainty...

Suppose a state does try to opt-out after a significant number of its c itizens are on tyhe public option.

Do gthey get reamed and suddenly lose gtheir coverage? Are they "grandfathered in" and can keep it, but their neighbors lose their own right to opt into it?

Possibly the political trealities might prevent that. But why add that instability to a program that is already going to be very complicated to implement?

[yourguide]

12. That would be so incredibly unpopular...

especially if a number of citizens are already on it, it would be like a state opting-out of medicare tomorrow. The uproar would be deafening. I dont see any scenario in which an after the fact opt out is possible unless the politician doesnt want any political future.

I dont see this as a degree of instability, I see this as accountability to their constituents which is why the Republicans and some of the blue dogs are so opposed to it, they know what it will mean for their political futures if their state opts out and if they dont vote to opt out they dont get any more $$$ from their Insurance and Pharma masters. The opt out corners anyone opposed to a public option where as a trigger almost guarantees nothing will ever happen.

Again, all of the states who howled about the stimulus took the money because ultimately it helped their states and their constituents...I cant imagine a different result with something so much more popular.

[Oregone]

13. Yes, it lets you play little political games at the expense of people

Wouldn't it just be hilarious if red staters all get stuck with mandated private insurance or face a stiff fine?!? That would be hilarious! Score one for the Democrats! Brilliant

[yourguide]

15. I dont think you get it...

it's not a game.

How many red states screamed and yelled they wouldnt take stimulus money and how many didnt actually take it? The public option is infinitely more popular than the stimulus was.

The minute there was mandated private insurance without a public option the constituents of each state would scream so loudly that I would bet my retirement fund that they'd opt back in lickity split.

Again, the reason Repukes and Blue Dogs are so against the opt out is because it will make them accountable to the voters, it would be like a state opting out of medicare...it would never happen because it's political suicide for any politician who pushes for it.

Just in case you need a reminder, the reddest states have the highest number of uninsured:

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/oldengoldendecoy/2009/04/uninsured-the-numbers-by-state.php

Which puts any politican even considering opting out in a very precarious position.

[Oregone]

17. Sounds exactly like a game

"The minute there was mandated private insurance without a public option the constituents of each state would scream so loudly that I would bet my retirement fund that they'd opt back in lickity split."

Place your bets!

[yourguide]

20. With pleasure...

again, no politician who wants to be re-elected would mandate that on their constituents...ever, the backlash would be overwhelming.

It's that simple and again why the republicans and blue dogs are pushing against the opt out.

[Cha]

22. Yes, it is brilliant.

[yellowcanine]

23. Yep - my thoughts also. State leaders who opt out will lose at the polls.

States which opt out will lose financially the states will be picking up the costs of the resulting uninsured people in that state. This will be a no brainer. No one will opt out.

[HamdenRice]

3. It's great! Part theater, part put up or shut up!

The point is that there are conservative states whose governors, senators and a plurality of voters don't want a public option imposed by a secret muslim socialist.

This calls their bluff. When the system begins, will the governor put up or shut up?

Either s/he opts in, and shows to the world that it was all bluster anyway. Or s/he opts out, and the voters get gouged by the insurance companies while watching things work much better in opt in states, and voters get an object lesson in the effects of voting against their own economic interests.

[quantass]

4. The OPT-OUT is more to SHUT-UP critics but still give the Dems an UPPERHAND....

Unless I'm missing something, if they do have an opt-out and as mentioned there is a grace period for XX years where all states MUST participate then after those years have the option to OPT-OUT, I think it's a clever game of bluff. Personally i don't think any state-official would dare remove the inevitably popular option. My bigger concern with the PO is will it be open to ALL. If not that is a crime and prices for most will still be through the roof. It will take another healthcare reform (which will be easier to pass) to FINALLY upgrade the PO to everyone and eventually to the proper / intelligent Single Payer like we have in Canada and every other advanced country.

Geez, lobbyist removal and campaign finance reform are SOOOO badly needed in the U.S. The healthcare debate is really not a debate and has a simple solution but congress/senate and to a slightly lesser degree the President are too comfy with corporate america distorting what needs to be done. Christ, I'm amazed and thankful for our Canadian system. It's far from perfect but it isn't the U.S.

[emulatorloo]

5. An Example. A State has the public option for X years. Then Governor Y (R) says "NOW LETS OPT OUT

because he or she is a TOOL with Presidential aspiratations (Think Sanford, Jindal, Palin types)

Governor Y is going to be facing some pretty pissed off citizens.

Or else maybe Gov Y will see it is popular and won't opt out because of fears of losing his precious Governorship.

[Armstead]

7. Maybe...or else maybe it will subject a state to a smaller version of this "debate"

meanwhile the insurance companies will be pumping in money (your money because it's paid from your rates) to rescind it.

[stray cat]

8. Or its a little like choice

[PolNewf]

9. Every province in Canada can opt out at any time

40+ years now and none has.

[depakid]

10. +1

[Hekate]

11. That's what I finally realized. No one in their right mind will opt-out once the program is in.

I keep thinking your country is so much more sane than mine in many ways... >shakes head<

Hekate

[Oregone]

14. Sounds like a moot concession then. Why would it motivate anyone more to vote for the bill?

I still haven't seen anyone intelligently answer this

[yourguide]

18. It allows the Blue dogs to vote for cloture

under the cover of the decision on the public option ultimately being left to the states (so it's not a "mandatory" public option)...it probably does not bring any republicans to the table. Ultimately it means the bill can pass with less than 60 votes so long as there are 60 votes for cloture.

[Oregone]

19. You think the lobbyist owners wont have this one worked out?

Silly. If something has no effect on the manifestation of legislation, it will likely have no effect on the vote.

[yourguide]

21. Well if the lobbyist owners have it all worked out

then we dont get health care reform period. But if they had it all worked out then why do they keep spending all of this money working against it?

This allows morons like Baucus and Nelson to vote against the bill and suck up to their phrama masters but all we need is 51 votes to get it passed because of the cloture vote.

[Aramchek]

16. it forces Repukes to publically strip their constituents of affordable Healthcare

It will be the end of many of them if they attempt it.

It's a TARP!!!!!