Some states already poised to opt out of government-run public health plan

[babylonsister]

Some states already poised to opt out of government-run public health plan
By Tony Romm - 11/21/09 02:02 PM ET


At least 11 states intend to forge ahead in the coming months with bills and ballot questions designed to block some of the healthcare reforms Democrats are trying to pass this year.

Their efforts could be a harbinger of trouble for the staple feature of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-Nev.) newly unveiled healthcare plan: a public option that allows states the ability not to participate.

Starting as early as this summer, state lawmakers began introducing bills that would shield their citizens from individual or employer mandates, among other key reforms in Democrats' healthcare proposals, according to the National Council of State Legislatures.

Movement on those issues is not likely for a few more months, as most state legislatures are not in session. Some state constitutions also require ballot measures in order to approve changes of that magnitude, further delaying any local action on the healthcare front.

However, these legislatures' early moves still offer crucial hints about how many states would similarly exempt themselves from the public option, should the Senate bill's “opt out” clause remain intact.

Already, the Congressional Budget Office estimates about one-third of states would back out of the system, limiting the public option insurance pool to about 3 or 4 million Americans. That would make the public plan's enrollment about 1 million smaller than the House's version of the program, according to a cost analysis of the Senate proposal.

Among those states likely to bow out first could be Virginia and New Jersey, which both recently elected Republican governors.

more...

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/68967-some-states-already-poised-to-opt-out-of-public-plan

[bigtree]

1. so the question is

. . . why aren't states free to adopt single payer systems instead if these red-staters get to pick and choose??

[FLDCVADem]

4. States can choose single payer

Nothing is stopping any state from adopting single payer.

[Motown_Johnny]

8. I think that is incorrect

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=128056041101

*snip*

Under the Kucinich Amendment a state's application for a waiver from ERISA is granted automatically if the state has signed into law a single payer plan. With the amendment, for the first time, the state single payer health care option is shielded from an ERISA-based legal attack




I know.. facebook, but it is still correct. Feel free to check it at more reliable sources

[FLDCVADem]

14. If it is currently prohibited

then how did the California legislature vote to enact it, only to have it vetoed by Arnold?

[bigtree]

15. not currently, after the present health bill would (theoretically) be enacted

that's the question

[bigtree]

9. I thought the option to let states choose single payer was dropped in the House bill

Pelosi: Single-Payer Amendment Breaks Obama's Health Care Promise
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/05/pelosi-single-payer-amend_n_347017.html


House Health Bill Ditches State Option to Create Single Payer System

10/30/09

In July, single-payer health care advocates won a prominent victory when the House Education and Labor Committee approved legislation empowering states to adopt Medicare-style health care systems. The 25 panel supporters were a rare mash of liberal Democrats who support the policy and conservative Republicans with a history of advocating for states rights.

Neither group will be pleased that the $894 billion health reform bill released yesterday by House Democratic leaders cuts the provision out altogether. Indeed, here’s Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), who sponsored the Education and Labor amendment, reacting yesterday to the news:

If a state wants better health care than can be provided by the federal government in the health care bill we are seeing today, the federal government should not stand in their way. The removal of the Kucinich amendment constitutes yet another capitulation to the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries who are already reaping billions of dollars from the bill.

http://washingtonindependent.com/65904/house-health-bill-ditches-state-option-to-create-single-payer-system


Kucinich Wants His Amendment Back
http://washingtonindependent.com/65956/kucinich-wants-his-amendment-back

[Oregone]

11. You need federal funding to do that really

And the administration is against it too.

How this should work, is that a state should be able to take the federal funds that the people (via the insurance subsidies) and its government would of received normally, and be able to implement their own solutions with it so long as it meets/exceeds some firm objective standards (a bit in the Canadian spirit).

What would that hurt? If a state can use the federal funds in other ways that created lower health care costs, more coverage, and better coverage, it should be a win-all for everyone.

Thats not even on the bargaining table though. Its enough to make you suspicious of the brokers' motives

[kenny blankenship]

18. We're only allowed to make things worse, not better.

Government is not the problem, the assholes running our government are the problem.

[rusty charly]

2. Then they receive no Federal Funding

for any Medical Programs in their states? Right?

[NavyDavy]

3. ciao! more for the states that actually care about their citizenry

[Zen Democrat]

5. Yeah, I think it's easier to have a bill ready than to get it passed.

A lot of uninsured in these states will be voting. It could get verrrrrrry interesting.

[jpak]

6. Let repugs opt out - they will be thrown out with it.

yup

[gateley]

7. Big Pharma has its hands in lots of pockets - not sure how many states are safe. nt

[Cleita]

10. This plan of compromises is flawed from the beginning so it will fall

apart even before it goes into effect. This is the beginning.

I TOLD YOU SO!

[Motown_Johnny]

12. I am OK with that, in the long run it will help us elect more Dems because people will want in

and will eventually figure that out.


In the mean time it gives states with more affordable health care an advantage in drawing businesses to them and boosting their economy.


I wish everyone could have good health care now, but since we are not getting anything approaching that we may as well make the best of what we will get, a long term political advantage on the state level where health care is concerned.

[BlooInBloo]

13. Like Wiener and others have said, a couple year long incubation period solves the problem.

[bigtree]

17. some say that time could allow them time to work against it, as well

[BlooInBloo]

19. Some say a lot of things.

[bigtree]

20. well

I assumed you were saying (the rep. was saying) that the incubation period 'solved' the problem of states lining up plans to opt-out like reported in the article above by allowing time to solidify support for the government-managed option. If there's time for politics on one side of the argument it stands to reason that there would be just as much opportunity in that time for opt-outers to work against the PO.

[ohheckyeah]

16. Of course Virginia's new

shit for brains republican governor would opt out.

[Laelth]

21. Shield people from the individual mandate?

Sounds like a good idea to me. Perhaps I need to call my state legislators.

:dem:

-Laelth

[OHdem10]

22. Will the people in those states, who supposedly opt-out, actually

be willing to have their taxes support Health Care and they
not get anything for it????