Jane Hamsher at Fire Dog Lake spares no words about the "opt-out" option.

[madfloridian]

Jane Hamsher at Fire Dog Lake spares no words about the option for states to opt out of the public option.

:toast: for Jane.

This seems like an idea that popped up almost overnight, and it suddenly was beloved by most everyone. Agreed it might get through the committee's Conservadems who care more about not hurting GOP feelings than they do about "the left" of their party.

I may not always agree with Jane Hamsher, but I love her passion. In this case I almost totally agree with her.

Can you hear the sound of unrecs driving a post down like water swirling down a drain. Just listen, and you will. I understand why, but it needs to be said.

Liberals help Rahm and Blue Dogs off the hook with Opt Out support

Someone asks the stance of Fire Dog Lake on this issue. Jane answers.

First of all, while there are a lot of different voices on this site who are free to speak for themselves, but the consensus of those of us regularly covering health care that the "opt-out" is bullshit. It's nothing but an escape hatch for a White House that has bungled health care up until now, a political exercise supported by those who want to deliver themselves from the mess they've made. Its supporters say that it will help them get the "60 votes" they need for the public option, which is curious because these people generally understand that the 60 vote threshold is for cloture. Not one single Senator in the Democratic caucus -- not even Joe Lieberman -- has said that they will join a Republican filibuster. Not one. And even Schumer himself says there are 54-56 votes for a public option, a comfortable majority for an up-or-down vote. They've never been able to produce 10 members of the caucus who say they will vote against one.

Jon Walker estimates that 51% of the population live in states that have GOP governors, GOP legislatures or both. Proponents of the "opt-out" say that they'll never have the guts to do it, and point to the fun we'll have watching them try. As evidence, they're harumphing about the fact that, in the end, no state turned down the stimulus money--which is so far away from being an apt comparison, it's laughable. The stimulus money was free money -- the "opt out" simply removes an option from the state exchange that would compete with private industry. I could get rich in a heartbeat running campaigns in states like yours to get them to "opt out." It's complex, difficult to understand, won't kick in till 2013 anyway and easily subject to demagoguery. The party that brought you "death panels" will have no problem taking big checks to get rid of it, and they'll probably have a lot of help from the other side of the aisle.

The big winner of the "opt-out" is Rahm Emanuel, who painted himself into a corner on health care. As Chris Hayes notes, liberal "veal pen" institutions were so busy taking dictation from him they didn't communicate the fact that the Democratic base was really, really attached to the public option, and he assumed that everyone would just "suck it up" like the had the war supplemental and ACES. Now that the Senate has to come up with a bill, and advocates have been successful in making it extremely uncomfortable to ditch the public option, Rahm is desperate to fulfill the promises he made to deliver a bill without one. He whipped Blue Dog votes in the House by promising them there would be no public option in the final bill, and now that they have boatloads of health care lobbying money to make sure there isn't one, they're looking to him to make good on that.

She continues, and she is right. Liberal bloggers and progressive sites were out with the support of this option before the rest of us knew what hit us.

So who comes to the rescue? Who charges in and suddenly decides that rather than force the issue and put the White House in the awkward position of either producing Democratic Senators willing to join a Republican filibuster or bring the public option in the HELP bill to the floor, they should be let off the hook?

Well, that would be the liberals, who quickly fanned out to let us know that it was okay to play Russian roulette with the health care of people like your wife who live in red states because it puts Rick Perry in an uncomfortable position. The people who have been clamoring about all the hideous things the GOP has done to health care suddenly step up and offer Rahm the escape hatch he's been looking for. Because even Tom Carper -- who apparently came up with this "solution" -- doesn't want to talk about it.

To get the progressive bloggers out with this so quickly, the coordination with the party leaders must have very good. If you read carefully, you will know which bloggers get good access and don't want to lose it by not cooperating.

We should use that same power, that coordination, to get through real true public government run option using our majority that we worked so hard to get. And we should do it quickly before more go bankrupt after losing their jobs, or having just enough insurance to get by.

We do have a majority. Dean has come out for the opt out, but before he did that which shocked me......he had something good to say.

He said Use your majority or lose your majority. Now Alan Grayson is taking the high road for us. God bless him.

[t0dd]

1. Simply put, Jane is wonderful. nt

[Justitia]

2. Nailed it! Firedoglake (& Jane) have been the go-to people on HRC. She gets to the heart of it.

And she is absolutely dead on with this latest.

The minute we get some "new development", I check in over there to see what is really going on.

[roguevalley]

48. I love her. I loathe Emanuel.

[dotymed]

54. I am with you, especially on Rahm.

Rahm is a closeted Rethuglican, to say the least. President
Obama should "can" him and (IMO) get Van Jones,or
someone with his passion,to fill his position. Anyway, my
problem is this: health care reform will not
"kick-in" until 2013? We all know(about) how many
people will die while waiting for this to become law. Today,
14,000 people a day lose their health insurance daily. This
number has been pretty steady for years. That is not counting
the people who already do not have coverage. Waiting until
2013 is beyond criminal. I know the arguments...well, we've
never even had reform...etc..That is irrelevant. We NOW have
chosen to fix this system, we can not afford to wait 4 years
for it to become law. BTW, the "opt out" provision
is a death sentence for millions. We have the majority and
like Jane said, (paraphrased) we have over 54 (50 needed)
votes for the P.O., let's use them.
Also, IF President Obama were to lose to a Rethug. The first
act would be to kill the reform bill. President Obama, at the
most, make reform "kick-in" in 90 days.

[ProSense]

3. "The big winner of the "opt-out" is Rahm Emanuel"?

What does Rahm have to do with the opt-out plan?

Hamsher or Dean, hmmm?

[t0dd]

6. Maybe he called a robust public option for all states fucking stupid?

:shrug:

[ProSense]

7. What does he have to do with the opt-out plan?

Where is the link that says he has anything to do with this besides Hamsher's opinion?

[t0dd]

10. Rahm has been driving for a weak public option since the beginning

Whenever liberal groups were running attack ads, he called it "fucking stupid" and threw his typical temper tantrum. I think the point is, he and the corpocrats have been trying desperately to diminish substantial reform in any way possible. Why should we let him and a few other obstructionists diminish what an overwhelming majority want? Even if he wasn't responsible for this idea in particular, he has been a major motivator in coming up with some compromise that significantly weakens the reform we get.

[ProSense]

12. I don't care what Rahm is driving. Where is the proof that he has

anything to do with this option, which is a national plan with a robust public option. Are you and Hampsher saying that Rahm is for a robust public option?

[saracat]

14. Yeah everyone knows the COC has zero influence on Policy!

:sarcasm: And keep repeating that it is a "Robust Public Option" Maybe click you heels together 3 times and it will come true!

[ProSense]

23. Yeah, everyone knows the COC is in Congress coming up with all their ideas.

Get a grip. Rahm isn't the ruler of the world. A Senator can come up with an idea without his help.

[t0dd]

15. No

Rahm has pushed over and over again for compromises to weaken the reform progressives have been striving for. This is yet another example of that. He's put pressure on many to settle for less, and even if he isn't directly tied to this, it even being discussed as a solution is a consequence of his obstructionist efforts. First co-ops.. then a trigger.. now this.. it never ends, and it never matters what a majority of people want. All I'm saying is, I agree with Jane. We have 51 votes for a public option available to all, and we can get a strong one passed with that same majority. Why even entertain these compromises? Just to appease Rahm and the like?

[ProSense]

24. I asked: if the bill has a robust public option, will you credit Rahm for it?

He has so much friggin power in your eyes.

[saracat]

33. Exactly why do you think Rham was chosen? For his lack of influence?

His inability to get things done? His rep is as a loudmouthed bullly boy thug who will do anything to get things done.The fact that he hasn't encouraged a solid PO in anyway and has always been against it, says a lot. Don't be silly. Rahm has made his position clear on HCR.And his fingerprints are all over a lot of things.

[pundaint]

53. Agreed, only Elected officials have responsibility

If Obama signs a shitty bill, he did a shitty job.

If your Senators or Representative didn't aggressively advocate for a strong bill, then they did shitty jobs.

Enough shitty jobs and they get voted out.

For me, this alone would qualify, but we all have to set out own thresholds.

[BrklynLiberal]

4. GREAT column. thanks for posting

[defendandprotect]

5. kick -- Jane is wonderful!!!

[OHdem10]

8. Common Sense tells us the public option will not work.

Do not believe that BS about GOP Govenors would not dare. I have
about 6 bridges to sell those "brilliant Congresspeople".

They will opt out. The Democrats are absolutely feckless. Think
about it --how many times have Dems predicted the Republicans
would behave a certain way and they ended up with egg all over
their face.

This is a way to make sure health care fails before it gets started.

Between you and me, this business of it not even starting until
2013 makes me suspicious and always has. Think about the number
of things that can happen by 2013.


Hamsher is correct on this one.

[bbgrunt]

9. +100. I'm disappointed in Dean. This opt out is a ruse and a big fail.

[clear eye]

41. Dean is not now supporting the opt-out if he ever was.

See Hamsher's quote of Dean HERE

[madfloridian]

44. He did say it out loud.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/08/dean-if-i-were-a-senator_n_314118.html

"One of the most respected progressive voices on health care reform said on Thursday that he could live with and even support a compromise to the public plan that would grant states the right to reject the option entirely.

Former DNC Chair Howard Dean told the Huffington Post that the "opt-out" compromise that is being discussed by Senate Democrats was not his ideal conception of what a health care overhaul should be. But he granted that the proposal would produce "real reform" and said that, if there were no other vehicle for getting a bill through the Senate, he would support it.

"If I were a member of the U.S Senate I wouldn't vote for the (Senate Finance Committee) bill but I would vote for this," Dean said, "not because it is necessarily the right thing to do but because it gets us to a better conversation about what we need to do."


Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/08/dean-if-i-were-a-senator_n_314118.html

[clear eye]

45. Thanks. Sounds like he changed his mind. n/t

[leftstreet]

11. K&R

[ProSense]

13. The interesting thing about linking Rahm to this plan is that

it calls for a robust public option with states having the ability to opt out. So if the bill has a robust public option, will Rahm get credit for it?

[madfloridian]

16. Rahm is in on it until the end. He is "at the table" until the final bill.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/5013

[madfloridian]

18. Also from the start Rahm has said with or without public option...

he doesn't care. He prefers the trigger.

[ProSense]

26. There is no trigger on the table, none. I asked if the bill has a robust public option,

a national plan with a robust public option, which the opt-out is, will you give Rahm credit for it?

[sabrina 1]

30. No, he will not because it will be over his intense efforts to prevent

it should it happen. The credit will go to people like Rep. Grayson who I'm sure Rahm hates with a passion, Kucinich, Kaptur and Jane Hamsher and every other outspoken individual online and off who see through this whole 'bailout for the Insuranced Industry' and have from the beginning.

I know one thing, anyone left who didn't realize that many of the 'liberal' bloggers and groups like Move-on had sold out for money a long time ago, just learned it in a big way on this.

[lark]

34. Duh, if it has an opt-out

it is not truly a nationwide plan, just a regional one. I guarantee that every southern state and lots of north western ones will opt out and their people will probably be worse off than before, having to even higher rates for insurance or having to pay penalties. How is that progress? The insurance co's surely love this option for more people to get stuck paying much higher prices because there is nothing else available.

[tomm2thumbs]

17. I do believe the Public Option is being trashed because they know everyone will choose it

My humble opinion is that if the largest states get this going, it will, in fact, take hold. Not to say this is the first way to do it, but I personally like having a foxhole to fall back to and don't relish an all-or-nothing strategy which is a recipe for nothing at times. My sense is that once the bill gets through the 'political system' the next couple of years will continue to drive people to the mindset of a public option and the pressures will move it further along and shift more of a majority of states prior to taking effect.

The minute word gets out about the pricing and benefits a public option in major states offer, other states will be hard pressed to argue. Who doesn't search online for the best prices? It will be a matter of time before the disparity is obvious. I do think the best sermon is a good example and this might be a good way to get things moving.... as a fallback.

I do also take Dr Dean's support of the idea as a significant indicator that he thinks it will quickly lead to progress in public options for healthcare, just as civil unions in his state helped lead to marriages. In America, people are always talking about the slippery slope, but I think in England they have a different term that maybe more to my liking. They call it 'the thin edge of the wedge'... once you get that in the crack and put a little pressure on it, you'll break the whole thing wide open.

my 2 cents, not trying to diminish anyone else's view on the matter

[madfloridian]

32. It's called "bipartisanship" "post partisanship".

And it seems to be the way our party is going.

Even with a majority, the other side still has much leverage.

Okay by me, it's cheaper for us that way.

[fight fraud]

19. For another perspective...

...check out -

Friday Talking Points (97) -- Is Opt-Out The Answer?


For my first post to the DU boards I was going to bring up some of the points
that Chris Weigant did but I couldn't have done it nearly as well.

As Chris said there are still a lot of unknowns here but I've got the feeling
that this might turn out to be a brilliant maneuver. I highly recommend reading
his column.


By way of introduction - I am a longtime reader of DU (over 3 years). I am a huge
fan of both KO and Rachel. I recently retired from the FAA so I do have a little more
time on my hands but I don't expect to be a prolific poster.

[madfloridian]

20. I read his column.

It is a move that assumes that red state ideologues can be shamed into NOT opting out. In reality the states like Florida controlled by religious right legislators can not be shamed into anything. They simply close their minds to the world and push their right wing views through not caring who they hurt.

If the party is not willing to use its majority, not willing to consider that half the states might just suffer badly...then we will have problems.

[fight fraud]

22. and if they do Opt-Out?

Hi madfloridian,

I've learned from and enjoyed many of your posts over the years.

There could be an endless list of possibilities depending on the
details of an Opt-Out option so since we are just speculating -

What about the states that do Opt-Out?

Unlike moving to another country to get affordable/necessary
health care it would be much easier to move to another state.
How many people would not consider this option if the life of a
loved one depended on living in a state with a public option?
This could have a huge economic impact.

It could also have a huge political impact. How long could the red
state ideologues remain in office if their voters began to believe
that it was not only unnecessarily expensive but was life-threatening
to live in their state? Who would ever consider moving to this state?

If the red state ideologues continue to deny their citizens something
that would be of great benefit to them isn't it reasonable to assume
that eventually that state will turn blue?

[madfloridian]

27. That assumes people in those states are aware of what is happening.

With pastors preaching that Obamacare is like Nazi care, with Rush and Beck yelling out lies, with the media not covering truth....they might not know or care.

I remember the lead-up to the Iraq war. This has the same feeling. We are giving cover to and pandering to the wrong people.

[lark]

35. Not everyone can pick up and move

I have an 85 year old mother who is not in great health and she depends on me and my family in a lot of ways. I could not leave her and moving her at this age would be devastating to her, something I could not in good conscience do.

Moving in general in this economy would be very difficult. How can you network and get jobs when you don't know anyone? I heard the other day there are 3 million jobs and 15 million people looking for work. How can people who are lucky enough to have jobs move? I certainly wouldn't, even without mom's condition.

Now, do I think opting out would hurt the state of FL, yes, absolutely in the long term. People would not move here voluntarily and over time the state would suffer. This would take years though, and lots of people would be hurt in the meantime.

It's time for Dems to grow spines, and vote in a robust public option. Screw the repugs and blue dogs - do the right thing for once, no triggers, co-opts or opt outs. "D's" you were not elected to be popular with everyone, you were elected to bring about real needed change - DO IT!!!

[bertman]

37. fight fraud, did you actually mean it when you said "Unlike moving to another country

to get affordable/necessary health care it would be much easier to move to another state. How many people would not consider this option if the life of a loved one depended on living in a state with a public option?"

That is an absolutely unbelievable bullshit statement!! (I wanted to use much stronger language but decided to moderate my anger.) How many people do you know who can just pick up and move to another state? Leave your job. Leave your business. Leave your friends. Leave your home--could you sell it in this market? and could you even make money on it? Pack up the kids, grandma, etc. and just start a new life in another state. Oh yeah, jobs are plentiful in "other" states now.

That sounds like some crap that Rush Limbaugh would say.

We don't need to wait until the red states turn blue. We need to pass a public option that gives every American an opportunity to have affordable health care coverage.

[fight fraud]

42. bertman, yes I did mean it but

I didn't say it would be easy for ANYONE to

"just pick up and move to another state? Leave your job. Leave your business. Leave your friends. Leave your home--could you sell it in this market? and could you even make money on it? Pack up the kids, grandma, etc. and just start a new life in another state."

Of course it wouldn't be an option for everyone but, as my original
statement said, for some people it would be EASIER than moving to
another country.

I'm sorry you felt my statement was bullshit but when you refuse to
read it correctly that can happen. And thank you for the Rush
comparison. It has got to be one of the most insulting things
anyone has ever said to me. Welcome to DU I guess.

I do agree with you that we need to pass a public option. In fact I
would much prefer single payer. But what if we can't get either one?
Do we just give up and turn everything over to the Republicans or do
we try to make things at least a little better?

[bertman]

49. fight fraud, I did mean to be insulting, but I apologize for that. In retrospect I still

think that your comment about it being easier (even for some people) was horrible but I should have been more circumspect.

Honestly, it does sound like something we would hear from a Limbaugh or Hannity to say that "it's not so bad. After all some people can move to another state instead of having to move to another country to get medical care." Don't you agree?

I'm glad you're a single payer proponent. I'm all for Medicare for All Americans myself.

Peace.

[fight fraud]

50. Thank you bertman

I appreciate the apology. I realize things can get a little heated here especially when
statements are not as clear as they could be.

I wasn't trying to imply that "it's not so bad" if someone is forced to relocate because of
their health care situation. It is a tragic situation if someone feels they must relocate,
or has to declare bankruptcy, or even die because of our broken health care system. I was
speculating that if a state decides to Opt-Out there might be major consequences, both economic
and political, to those states and those politicians who don't listen to their citizens and
still refuse to Opt-In.

Is it that unreasonable to speculate that -

1. People might decide to leave the state
2. People might decide not to relocate to that state
3. Companies may decide not to start, expand, or relocate to that state
4. People may finally decide to vote for people who will serve their interests

Again, it is far from a perfect situation and far from an immediate fix and I wasn't trying to
suggest it was. A lot depends on the details. Single payer or a robust public option are much
more preferable. The point I have been trying to make, apparently rather clumsily, is that right
now we are stuck with the politicians we have and if they can't or won't deliver an ideal bill
the Opt-Out option shouldn't be dismissed too quickly.

[Dr.Phool]

39. I'd be willing to make a bet.

Our absolutely corrupt Florida Legislature would be the first to opt out. Faster than Perry and Texas.

[madfloridian]

51. I am with you on that.

.

[gkhouston]

40. To have any effect, hundreds of thousands of people would have to pick up

and move. These people will magically be able to find jobs in some other state in this economy? And who's going to buy their houses, if everybody's trying to sell? :banghead:

The only way red state governments will be coerced into opting in is if the public option is financed by "free money", i.e., federal tax dollars. That's why they took the stimulus money. The citizens of the red states were going to have to pay for the stimulus whether or not they derived any benefit so there was pressure to receive some benefit. If the public option is not funded in a similar manner, a lot of red states may not opt in for decades.

[Are_grits_groceries]

21. The legislators in SC have no shame.

They will make opting out into a virtue, and pick out parts of the bill and distort them. They will get plenty of money to run this campaign.

In addition, this is music to their ears. It is STATES' RIGHTS. They love it and want to expand it to everything.

[madfloridian]

28. Yes, they will make it into a virtue.

And Floridians too often are just unaware. If they were thinking about stuff our state would not be in such a mess financially and health care wise. Not to even mention we are near the last in funding public education.

[WeCanWorkItOut]

25. Why is "Use your majority" the high road? Wouldn't it be better to make a more intelligent bill?

I'm sorry that it seems such a gamble to want people to know more.
But it's shocking how little about health and health care they know now.
It's also shocking how illiberal our health care system is.
And the plans the Democrats propose do little to change this,
or to bring down prices. And they are very likely to hurt many
Medicare patients unnecessarily.

Yes, it's ugly to be in such a painful situation, with so many people
being hurt now. But this is just a quick fix, and is likely to
hurt so many more in the long run. We need to do better.
And we need to think about what is wrong with both parties
and with the interest groups that support them,
that have brought us to such a situation.

[madfloridian]

29. It's cheaper for me if the Dems DON'T use their majority.

Heck, hubby and I are amazed at just how much we were spending on Democrats, DFA, etc.

Our credit cards are in great shape now.

If our party can not pass a GOOD health care bill while protecting Medicare for seniors at the same time, they don't deserve a majority.

[BlooInBloo]

31. Congratulations on getting *somebody* on your side...

Must have been a tough few days there, with Krugman, Dean, and Nate Silver (am I missing any?) all being varying degrees of 'pro'.

[anonymous171]

36. Do you really think politics is some kind of game where everyone can win?

Politics is war. People die in wars all the time. The important part is winning (and spreading your own ideology while crushing your opponents'.)

[bertman]

38. This is Democratic cowardice at its most putrid. Instead of turning the screws on those who

oppose a robust public option they start running for the cover of an "opt out" like a bunch of chicken-shit cowards.

The Blue Dawg Turds could be brought to heel if the President and the Democratic leadership were committed to doing it. Unfortunately, we are seeing the LACK of commitment on this reform that President Obama has shown from the start.

Recommended.

[glitch]

43. Rec #31 (nevermind about the unrecs). Hamsher is correct as usual. Thanks for posting. nt

[defendandprotect]

46. "Opt OUT Governors" and "Opt IN Governors" . . . could get interesting -- !!!

[BlooInBloo]

47. It's too bad people in states with shitty electorates don't spend more time...

yelling at their shittily-voting neighbors.

Then this wouldn't be an issue in the first place.

[Bonobo]

52. It's a democracy, right? So people get what they vote for. nt

[clear eye]

55. Republicans and Blue Dogs have no trouble

painting any social safety net program as a ruinous tax-increasing measure. It has never mattered what the reality of cost/benefits are. Jane is right--why does anyone think they would hesitate for a second this time? Especially when there are such huge campaign contributions at stake with which to sell it and themselves come the next election.

So I say to DUers who are betting the red states wouldn't dare opt out, "DON'T COUNT ON IT."

From what I've read, there are enough votes, 51 or 54 depending on whom you talk to, to pass the type of weak privatized, state by state "public" option that is in the Senate HELP Committee and the House bills. A "robust" public option, nationally-based, gov't-run, and allowed to bargain for rates w/ providers is nowhere to be seen. As long as the bill that comes up for a vote doesn't include any poison pills like a prohibition against states creating their own single-payer, it's probably better than no change. Maybe. If the companies don't lobby to be allowed to charge our gov't so much for minimal coverage that we can only find the money to subsidize a relative handful of folks. And if it won't turn people off to the idea of publicly funded health care altogether.

I'm still hoping that the famous Churchill quote is right in this case. That America will do the right thing after it has tried everything else.

[Kermitt Gribble]

56. Completely agree. Opt-out is BS! n/t

[madfloridian]

57. There is no need for it. They are playing the progressives...

and pandering to the conservatives.

[Kermitt Gribble]

58. The health care reform debate so far

has been nothing more than a good cop/bad cop routine to bolster the illusion that the politicians work for the people. It seems as though they are pandering to the conservatives, but most of them have the same goal in mind, which is to pad the pockets of the insurance companies.

I'm very disappointed that Howard Dean is supporting this, though he seems to be doing so half-heartedly.

[Ramsey]

59. Rahm needs to go, along with Geithner and Bernacke and Sumners.

I cannot imagine how someone who campaigned for change came up with these losers. Oh, yes, I can. That was the campaign.