Which would be better, a weak public option in all states, or a strong public option with opt out?

[yurbud]

I don't know if this is on the table at all right now, and the Senate very well could be negotiating an opt out, or worse, trigger, to win the support of corrupt Blue Dogs.

But for the Progressives in the Senate and House who still hold out some hope of getting a stronger public option in the final bill (like one opened to everyone who wants to escape private insurance and modeled on, or more simply, A PART OF, Medicare), is it better to be content with a weak public option (like the one in the House and Senate bills) or trade the opt out for conservative states in exchange for a real public option for everyone else?

I can see advantages either way. The weak public option could be strengthened over time. On the other hand, the full public option in some states would probably get people clamoring for it in the opt states, and likely even kicking their corrupt, moral filth Republicans and Blue Dog Democrat ''representatives'' out of office or even tar and feathering them.

I realize this is a bit of a false dichotomy since there could be any other number of scenarios that play out, but I'd like to know how people feel about this one.

So which would you prefer?

[Taverner]

1. Strong w/Opt out - People will move to CA (once again) and elsewhere and get jobs

[Sebastian Doyle]

16. Of course there is a downside to that.

A lot of states right now can't employ the people they already have.

Another potential downside.... red state voters moving to blue states. Don't want more Repukes elected :(

[icee2]

2. Universal Health/Medical Care. n/t

[yurbud]

4. that's my first choice too. I'm thinking of best possible outcome from shitty, corrupt job congress

has done.

[ClassWarrior]

7. Single payer? Join PDA and help us get it passed in the states...

Canada implemented its single payer plan, province-by-province. We can do the same! Join...

Progressive Democrats of America

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

15. .

[anonymous171]

3. STRONG PO W/ OPT OUT. nt

[TicketyBoo]

5. Strong public option

because I don't think any state would dare to opt out, not if the state politicians want to stay in office.

[Ozymanithrax]

6. A trigger is nothing more than an excuse never to implement it.

After all, they can just make up the data to show it isn't necessary.

An opt out could have problems. What do states need to do to opt out? Can a state opt in, once it has opted out? If you use the public option and your state down the road opts out, what happens to your insurance? A lot of questions.

[yurbud]

13. I absolutely agree. That would be the worst possible thing Democrats could do

[Ozymanithrax]

23. The worst possible things Democrats could would be nothing...

No bill.

[MannyGoldstein]

8. Strong With Opt Out Will Destroy Republicans and Blue Dogs

70% of Americans back a strong public option. If they dare opt out, Blue Cross Dogs and other Republicans will be in the ditch at the next election date.

[Gman2]

9. yup

[patrice]

10. I want to say "strong with an opt out" but what if my darned red state opts out???

I love my job. I'm making a real difference. I do NOT want to move to another state.

[Sebastian Doyle]

11. How about Single Payer w/ Opt Out?

Since the objections to single payer (aside from the corporate criminals) are all coming from the bassackward states that would opt out anyway, why not do the best thing possible in the states willing to deal with reality?

[ddeclue]

12. None of the above: Strong public option everywhere. You offer a false choice we shouldn't be accept

ing.

[yurbud]

14. I agree, and would actually prefer a system like Britain's which is state run top to bottom

but I present this choice as scenario to getting a slightly better outcome from the corrupt, half-assed work Congress has done.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

18. OK, I posted below you... but your response is better than mine.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

17. Strong w/ opt out, and I live in a state that would opt out. But I think that would change

after the states that opt out see how much it benefits the states that did accept it.

[yurbud]

19. I agree

[optimator]

20. doesnt matter what we want

they are not listening to us.

[ClassWarrior]

21. Then shout louder.

:shrug:

I mean, who's going to listen to whining?

NGU.

[notesdev]

22. Total state level control

Not only is it constitutional, but it would solve a lot of the controversy. Let's face it, you're never going to get Utah and Massachusetts to agree on things like whether abortion should be covered. Let each state decide for itself, and if you don't like what your state does, it's a lot easier to change something on the state level than the national level. In the worst case, you got 49 other states to choose from.

[AlinPA]

24. I heard "opt-in" the other day .

http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/10/19/opt-in-insurance-for-50-states-a-deal-maker-for-health-care-r/