If states are allowed to 'opt-out- of the public option as Harry Reid agreed to push for last week

[bigtree]

. . . why shouldn't states be able to 'opt-in' to a single payer system, like Rep. Kucinich advocated behind his 'no' vote?


Reid's (agreed to) proposal:

"In the two weeks since the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, embraced a proposal that would allow states to opt out of a new government health insurance plan, state leaders have begun debating whether to take part, and the question has emerged as a litmus test in some campaigns for governor.

The proposal, which is being woven into the Senate health care bill, would shift some power to the states and would foist upon state leaders the burden of a choice that, in some cases, could pit principle and politics against pragmatism. States would be given the right to opt out of only the public plan, not from the tax increases needed to subsidize coverage for the uninsured."

http://www.goupstate.com/article/20091111/ZNYT04/911113012/1106?&tc=autorefresh


Rep. Kucinich's proposal:

“Although the amendment does not create a single payer health care system, it removes a major obstacle for any state that wishes to pursue the single payer option. This amendment builds on the momentum of the national movement for single payer health care,” said Kucinich.

“For years there has been a growing support for a fundamental change in the way we look at health care in this country. A single payer health care plan is the best and most tested way to provide health care for everyone while increasing quality and controlling costs,” added Kucinich.

The Kucinich amendment removes a legal obstacle to states that choose single payer plans. The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) pre-empts legislating health care reform at a state level if the state efforts challenge employer-based health care plans.

read: http://kucinich.house.gov/NEWS/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=138052

[optimator]

1. quit complaining

and get on your knees and thank insurance corporations for the crumbs they allow us to have.:sarcasm:

[geek tragedy]

2. Serious question:

If, say, Vermont were to enact single payer, would people who preferred to keep their private insurance instead be able to do so?

[TheWraith]

3. No.

At least not for any services covered by the single payer.

[geek tragedy]

4. Well, then Obama would have to veto it to keep

a central campaign promise.

People can argue the merits back and forth whether it would be better to keep that promise when he hasn't kept others, of course.

[Oregone]

5. Even with this reform, if your employer chooses a new provider, the same thing would happen

But Obama won't veto this.

Honestly, I think its a ridiculous promise that Obama made in the first place. The ability to keep an inferior service has no inherent value. It was a pandering attempt to soothe fear.