Looks like a state by state opt-out public option is the compromise.

[tridim]

Republicans apparently love it.

Obviously all the regressive/red states will opt out as soon as possible. Then where are we?

This sounds like a really stupid plan, but we'll see.

Anyone have any further information yet?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

1. Bizarre... insurance is for people, not states

[babylonsister]

2. As Sam Stein said, it's in the nascent stage. It very well may not fly. nt

[WonderGrunion]

3. This approach actually led to single payer nation wide in Canada

Canada started with only two provinces choosing single payer health care. Eventually insurance companies folded up and all provinces joined Canada's national health program.

[asdjrocky]

4. We're so fucked.

People will be celebrating a public option that isn't.

A gift to insurance companies, still millions without health care, and more campaign money rolling in. We. Are. So. Fucked.

[saracat]

6. Don't even get me started.If this is what it ends up as Obama better get the balls to veto it.

[kristopher]

76. Are you kidding?

This is genius. It backs the Republicans into a corner on their home turf - if they reject health care they will answer to their voters directly. There is nowhere to hide.
AND we have enough states that will go for it to make it an entity that has the power to affect prices.

[Generic Brad]

90. Politics aside - what about their constituents who can't afford health care?

We need a plan that covers all Americans, not one that sticks it to people who have GOP representation. We have fellow Democrats and Independents in those red states who do not deserve to be left behind

[rufus dog]

102. I have a similar take

The blue states will take it, so the higher educated, higher income, lower obesity States join on and the Red States are left with a smaller pool and higher claims, resulting in increased costs.

It sucks for our red Staters in the short term but creates a huge issue which should drive for more progressives being elected in red states.

Think of the states that will jump on, California, New York, Illinois, Michigan, all the big boys except for Texas. The other possibility is that the red staters are just bluffing and will go along with it similar as to how they did with the Stimulus package. In this case they will be pissing off a lot of voters.

[TomCADem]

5. Gee, What Would Rick Perry (TX) and Bobby Jindal Do?

Maybe they will stop threatening to secede.

Seriously, this may not be a bad idea for those red states who are absolutely committed to fattening private insurer profits.

[tridim]

8. They'll opt out and screw their citizens and break the national PO "pool"

This scenario is probably the Repukes' plan.

[TomCADem]

12. California and New York Alone Should Be Able To Support A Pool

So long as PO states are not subsidizing non-PO states, and it is a national pool for those States that participate.

[Xithras]

26. Red states have higher rates of obesity and cardio problems.

Eliminating them might not have the negative impact on the "pool" that you think.

[FatDave]

57. Exactly what I was thinking.

So we won't have to cover a bunch of rednecks who eat crap and smoke? Sounds like a win to me.

And yes, I realize not everyone in the red states are rednecks, but the majority of rednecks are in red states.

[harmonicon]

122. I am a "redneck" who eats "crap" and smokes.

Thank you for your support.

[Hawkowl]

135. You are welcome to move?

I guess you could move to a state with a public option?

[harmonicon]

141. fuck that

I live in the UK - I've got the NHS.

[Warren Stupidity]

117. We have far more than enough to build a viable system.

[anonymous171]

7. Sounds like a great plan actually. I only wish they could have done this with single payer.

If the red states don't want it, they don't have to have it.

[Lyric]

10. And the innocent poor people in red states who can't afford to move?

Just fuck them, too bad you were born in a red state?

Jesus. If this is what we've come to, then start the civil war, because we're already there except for the tanks and bombs.

[anonymous171]

11. Then they organize and out vote the opposition. Democracy works.

[TomCADem]

17. Exactly, Why Elect Rick Perry, Bobby Jindal and Mark Sanford?

If people don't like the decisions made by their State elected officials, then they should vote them out. Indeed, I think this is a better idea.

[ipaint]

64. Well why don't we just cut through the bullshit

and tell people they have to be registered democrats to get healthcare.

[TomCADem]

70. That's A Right Wing Lie That Under Health Reform Republicans Don't Get Care

[ipaint]

73. This whole thread is about red state people not getting health care

because they are unfortunate enough to live in a red state or are repubs who vote for republicans.

If it's a repub lie your repeating it.

[TomCADem]

75. Won't The People Of The State Band Together And Elect State Officials

Who support the public option if the people of that state thought it was in their best interest?

[ipaint]

79. There are going to be states that run red no matter how much work

democrats do. Mostly because education is so piss poor and jobs pay nothing in poor areas and repubs are there to feed them bullshit from day one while the dems are in the safe cities and states up on their holier than thou pedestals.
You get them to change by improving their lives not by making them even more miserable. Certainly not by continuing to allow ins. companies to kill them.

It's the same backwards approach that gets us stuck in endless wars. You don't win over people by punishing them and destroying their lives. All you do is create a permanent hatefilled enemy. The repub politicians will just love manipulating people further into the world according to beck.



"So we will either see that Americans, religious or not, get educated equally so they won’t be suckered by political and religious hucksters. If not, then we must accept that uneducated people interpret politics in an uninformed and emotional manner, and accept the consequences. America can no longer withstand the political naiveté of this ignored white class.
Middle class American liberals cannot have it both ways. It has come down to the simplest and most profound element of democracy: Fairness. Someday middle class American liberals will have to cop to fraternity and justice and the fact that we are our brother’s keeper, whether we like it or not.
They’re going to have to sit down and actually speak to these people they consider ugly, overweight, ill educated and in poor taste. At some point down the road all the Montessori schools and Ivy League degrees in the world are not going to save your children and grandchildren from what our intellectual peasantry, whether born of neglect or purposefully maintained, is capable of supporting politically. We’ve all seen the gritty black and white newsreels from the 1930s."

http://www.joebageant.com/joe/2006/01/revenge_of_the_.html

[Kalyke]

124. Yeah - education in the red states is piss poor.

:eyes:

That's why my son scored in the 95th percentile in ALL categories on his national standardized tests. That means, for those who don't know, that he comprehends more than 95 percent of children throughout the United States.

Piss poor education.

Whatever.

:eyes:

[Warren Stupidity]

120. No it is about democracy.

Sorry if Stupid is a majority where you live. You vote yourselves out of the system and then blame everyone for your not being in the system. We aren't voting you off the island, you are voting yourself off the island. Do you see the difference?

[Kalyke]

127. That's not exactly true.

Poor people many times don't have the time to go vote, so they are under-represented. They may want to participate, but can't because all the rich white folks voted for that dumbass Republican.

[Warren Stupidity]

142. Not my fault.

This is all speculative bullshit anyway. But if it were to come to pass that indeed there was a state opt-out feature in the bill, your state voting to opt out, while unfortunate and regrettable, is your state's fault, not my state's. Take it up with the voting majority idiots in your state. Blaming the states who don't have a voting majority idiot block is a bit silly. And no, an opt-out provision is not, in my opinion, veto-worthy in and of itself.

I agree with others here who have noted that such a provision, if acted on by the Confederacy of Dunces, would likely be the fundaloon party's political suicide. As red staters started to figure out just how screwn they were, even the dumbest of the dumb would likely start voting in their own self interest.

[Warren Stupidity]

118. They don't. Republicans in Smartland will get great healthcare. nt.

[Xithras]

35. Yep. Only 26% of Texans voted in the last governors election.

The other 74% apparently had more important things to do. What happens to that 74% when the governors race suddenly has the potential to impact the health care they and their children receive? How many of those 74% will be motivated to vote against the 'Pukes when they see their neighbors in other states getting subsidized and guranteed coverage while they still fight with their insurance companies over denials and copays? Self interest is one of the greatest democratic motivators.

[Ms. Toad]

131. That (opt out single payer) would have been a good idea.

This one is better than not having a public option at all - but in my opinion the public option really doesn't add much as long as the rest of the insurance reforms are in the final bill. It's just another insurance option. Maybe it will add a little competition and marginally lower costs - so, as long as we're stuck with insurance it is better to have it than not - and an opt out is better than an opt in.

[still_one]

9. Can the states afford this? I thought the states were in terrible shape

which is why we needed it on a national level

[anonymous171]

13. What? The US Senate is almost an extension of corporate America

A state by state system would do a lot to dilute corporate influence.

[SIMPLYB1980]

15. Think back to the stimulus.

They tried to op out of that and it didn't go good for them.

[Ms. Toad]

132. There shouldn't be any cost to the states.

A public option is just an insurance plan run by the government. It has to charge enough to cover its costs - just like any other insurance plan. The only difference is that it isn't being run to add a profit on top of covering costs.

[robo50]

14. So if a few hundred thousand poor Texans die from lack of care, that's

OKAY with American lawmakers?

This is the most cowardly health care reform effort ever in American History.

Obama should have outlawed health insurance companies as of Jan 20 2009, effective one year later, and let all Americans sign up for single payer on the internet, at public schools, libraries, post offices, etc.

Taxes go up 5% for everyone, health insurance premiums paid by employers, self employed, etc no longer collectible.

Tens of thousands of "'poor insurance executives" out of work and facing jail terms on charges of conspiracy to commit manslaughter by r reckless disregard, something like that.

Would have solved the health care "problem" in one year, and had 99% of Americans insured before the 2010 elections.

Obama, I'm sorry to say, as much as I love you, guy, you FAILED to use the political capital you had, and squandered it by letting Republicans screw you !

[anonymous171]

19. Too bad. Seriously, if they want healthcare they need to hit the polls and elect progressives

[tridim]

20. Except the President can't do that.

He's not a dictator.

[robo50]

29. Well, let's try to be a bit more creative ...introduce a bill to make it illegal

to derive any profit from denial of care to any American citizen.

Two weeks it would have sailed through Congress.

End of Health Care Insurance Companies as we know them forever.

[anonymous171]

30. So, prevent them from denying claims? nt

[Trekologer]

71. Sure, why not?

If a patient's doctor makes a diagnosis and prescribes treatment, the insurance company can request a second opinion. However, the insurance company must pay for the second opinion, including transportation. If the doctor who made the second opinion is ultimately incorrect, their medical license is suspended for 30 days. If it happens two more times, the license is revoked permanently. And the insurance company MUST pay 100% for the original doctor's diagnosis and treatment. NO co-pay, NO deductible. If they want to deny the claim, they must pay the price when they're wrong.

[robo50]

146. I like your creative thinking!

Nice way to get rid of these denials. And, of course, NO denials for "prior" condition.

[Trekologer]

150. And no retroactive denials

If they paid a claim, they can't later decide to deny it and expect repayment.

[Winterblues]

16. I love it as well

I think this is the very best way of getting rid of Republicans. The people there will be very unhappy when they watch all the rest of America enjoy quality care at reasonable cost and yet because of their representation they can not. They will vote the bums out in very short order I would imagine.

[cynatnite]

88. Yes, I love it, too...who cares about those that get sick and die in the process...

:eyes:

[crim son]

119. You point out an upside

but I'd rather just have universal coverage without delay. You probably agree.

[ProSense]

18. Here's the

description

[tridim]

23. Thanks for the link. nt

[TorchTheWitch]

21. states can opt out of PO but there would still be a mandate????

Where are you getting this info?

[Ms. Toad]

133. The PO is just one more option in the insurance exchange

The mandate is part of insurance reform (which applies to all insurance - including the public option).

[nadinbrzezinski]

22. Remember kiddies one of Kucinich's ideas was to allow single payer

on a state by state basis...

This is a somewhat watered down version of this, but I am not sure if a good idea.

It could lead to the US following Canada though.

[robo50]

34. State by state is a baby aspirin, compared to what adults need.

People move from state to state, people live in one state, work in another, or in 2 or 3 or 6 others.

What state would control what?

Kucinich is full of useless, unworkable ideas, just like most Republicans.

[nadinbrzezinski]

42. The predictable Kucinich attack

by the way... you do know why he even suggested that?

Go read about how Canada got their much vaunted National Plan.

By the way, in case you wonder, the Ontario Plan is different than that in the Maritimes.

[FatDave]

58. The state your residence is in of course.

Say I live in Iowa and drive a truck for a living. The company I work for is based in Nebraska. I work in 48 states and sometimes Canada. I still pay my taxes in Iowa. Silly question.

[Selatius]

60. Actually, the state-by-state single-payer proposal was how Canada became ALL SINGLE-PAYER.

Once it was set up at the local and provincial level, it soon was copied and emulated in other provinces across Canada. Canadian health care reform would not have taken the shape it does today had it not been for this approach. You would do well to study up on Canadian history before you shoot down Kucinich's proposal.

[sam sarrha]

24. if they do opt out .. it will elect a lot of Democrats... lots of suffering till then tho

[tridim]

36. The suffering would be horrific, I don't think it's worth the sacrifice.

The insurance industry would rape the poor with a "mandatory coverage" stipulation.

Pay Wellpoint $1500 per month or you go to jail. It would be a bloodbath.

[ecstatic]

128. I doubt that will happen. We're already in the worst case scenario

Things can only get better from here on out.

[Xithras]

25. I like the idea.

First off, you need to remember that Republican dominated states tend to lead the nation in everything from obesity to heart disease. Losing them will actually be good for the risk pool.

More importantly, it will greatly clarify for the mindless working class Republicans the difference between socially progressive government, and regressive conservative government. When you have busses full of little old ladies in Texas driving over to New Mexico to get their prescriptions, the Texans will be forced to confront the hell they're creating for themselves. More importantly, if a public option is implemented in more liberal states and WORKS, it will undermine the whole Rethug meme that a public option will lead to little old ladies dying in the street.

Finally, it will econmically undermine the red states and reduce their political power. A LOT of large companies in red states will be FAR more willing to look at moving to blue states when they realize that doing so can save them millions of dollars a year in medical coverage costs.

While the implementation may be a bit unequal at first, it would create social and economic pressures that would eventually lead to it being adopted everywhere. As someone else pointed out, this is the way Canada implemented their system, and look where they are today. I'd say the idea worked out fairly well for them.

[saracat]

31. My god. You would let people continue to die to prove your point?

Is this what the Democratic party has come to? This makes me vomit.You sound like the GOP voter who told me this molrning "Not everyone deserves to live" .Winning isn't everything.It its what you win that matters.

[anonymous171]

33. People who vote republican, have, by their vote, chosen not to have a public option

To use a conservative argument, giving them free health care for electing republicans would simply be rewarding bad behavior.

[saracat]

39. I am a Democrat who lives in a state which would opt out.

My husband is running for a nonbpartisan seat and i was told this morning that as a Democrat, I don't "deserve" to live. You sound just like her. This is just dreadful I am appalled that peoples lives would be held so cheap. I loathe the GOP but healthcare should be for all.

[TomCADem]

72. Then Get Independents To Support Opting In To A Public Option

Won't the people get together and elect leaders who want to opt in?

[anonymous171]

93. Hell, even republicans need healthcare.

When they have to choose between their own health and their political party, they will have no choice but to vote democratic.

[ecstatic]

129. You don't know yet that the governor would opt out

In fact, I think they'd be really STUPID if they did. But if they did, the democrats in the state should all turn out and VOTE (saying this as a democrat in a red state)!!!

[tnlefty]

52. Just so you know, there are folks in the South who identify as

liberals not the new moniker 'progressives', who don't vote republican, can't stand republicans, work hard in local, state and national elections, and who are outnumbered by the dumbfucks around us.

We've organized, phone banked, stood on sidewalks holding signs, hold/held offices in our local parties, but are still outnumbered by the dumbfucks. Nice to see that we're lumped in with them and that we are so casually dismissed.

BTW, I want the REAL public option, H.R. 676, or a similar buy in as a public option, and no one is talking about free anything. My mother pays into Medicare every month.

Oh, and thanks for the 'bad behavior' comment as if we're children.

[saracat]

54. Really. I am so angry about that comment I can't see straight.

I live in a "red state" that is almost evenly divided butwhile we have mostly blue congressman, our local govt is red. We would be punished as well.

[SIMPLYB1980]

38. Yes.

They voted for their leaders. It would be funny to watch the Democrats move to blue states and leave dumbfuckistan to the idots.

[saracat]

46. Really, and where would these Democrats get the money to move?

This is stupid beyond belief.And there aren't any jobs in blue states either and especially not for sick people. Nice GOP like lack of cmopassion you have.

[Cali_Democrat]

77. That would be the consequence of living in a state that opts out

The voters in that opt-out state will hopefully turn the state blue when they see people in blue states getting much cheaper healthcare. That probably wouldn't take too long in this age of skyrocketing healthcare costs.

Then we can move toward universal healthcare for the whole country.

It's a great idea IMO.

[Kalyke]

136. Some people rather enjoy where they live for reasons that have

nothing to do with politics.

They like the weather, their jobs, being near their extended families, etc.

Democrats in red states shouldn't have to move because of health care.

Why don't YOU move down here so you can help us 42 percenters get above the 51 percent mark and vote in some Democrats, huh?

[Warren Stupidity]

144. So then your suggestion is that Obama veto legislation that allows

for a state opt-out of a public option? That we kill reform for everyone because a minority of states are run by idiots?

Democrats in Blue States should suffer this crap because, because why?

[lumberjack_jeff]

40. It's hard to prevent people from voting themselves to death.

Particularly when you insulate them from the consequences of it.

[Xithras]

44. You would force progressives in blue states to suffer simply because the 'thugs won't cooperate?

Large parts of the country WANT this coverage, and want it yesterday, but we're being obstructed by politicians from the red states who don't want to socialize their conservative "utopia's".

You are exactly right in that it's WHAT YOU WIN THAT MATTERS. A state by state system would allow us to implement genuine public option healthcare in the states that want it. Without an optout, we will probably instead be stuck with some "compromise" that serves nobody at all.

I would rather have a victory over a portion of the country that results in a large chunk of the population getting coverage, and introduces the possibility that all of the country could be pulled in WHENEVER THEY CHOOSE TO JOIN, than hold out for a milquetoast victory over the entire country that results in everyone getting crappy coverage, or worse...a mandate...that will become the standard for the next 25 years.

A victory without a public option is not a victory in any sense. A compromise that ends up with a public option available in only some states is ALWAYS superior to a compromise that results in no public option anywhere.

And, as others have pointed out, they choose to do this to themselves. State governments are far more responsive to voter whims than the federal government. If the voters in a state want a public option, they need to vote for people who will support them. Choices matter. Votes matter. Who you choose to elect has a direct impact on the quality of the life you will lead. People need to learn that.

[saracat]

48. Just wow. You don't care about the progressives in the red states either

or anyone else. it isn't true that ANY public option is better than none.That isn't true because the way things are going if we don't get it right NOW. we won't get it right ever. But then I guess you might have a lot of years left , aren't sick, live in a blue state and can afford to be callous.

[Xithras]

51. It has nothing to do with callousness.

It's become apparent that our government is full of appeasers and sycophants, and that nobody has any intention of forcing a public option onto the entire country.

I'm a pragmatist, and I'll take a partial victory over no victory at all. A plan that includes mandates and no public option is a victory only for insurance companies.

California has a bill on the way right now that will introduce single payer statewide here, if it passes. If that happens, I'll happily support my state government in suing to opt out of whatever bullshit scheme the feds come up with. I'm sick of seeing progressives suffer and give up on our own ideals, in areas we control, because of Republican obstructionism. If we have to cut our losses and go it alone, so be it. I'd rather cover the WHOLE country, but I'll take what I can if that's not an option.

To use a medical term, it's TRIAGE. Expend your efforts to save as many of the saveable patients you can, and let nature take its course on the ones you can't. Without triage, you run the risk of letting all of the patients die. Realistically, "nature" would probably result in the red states joining the public option in under a decade anyway.

[saracat]

53. You are callous and your thinking is exactly the same as the GOP

Winning at all costs is all that counts. Pragmatism is counting the lives that are lost as collateral damage in the big picture.What you are proposing is monstrous.What is sad is you don't even seem to know it. Pragmatism such as yours may well work but the lives cost won't be worth it. What is even sadder is that this "pragmatism" isn't necessary. We don't need the GOP votes this is slanted toward. I could present a lot of reason that are "politically pragmatic" as to why this might also not work but I don't have the time and I am too horrified by this option to even want to deal with it for now.

[Xithras]

67. Couldawouldashoulda. But they're NOT.

We may not NEED those GOP votes, but our own party leadership has made it abundantly clear that they have no intention of proceeding without them. If we had party leadership with any spine, we'd cram a nationwide public option down their Republican throats and gloat as they choked on it.

But we don't, and we won't.

Our leadership stands on the verge of selling us all down the river to push mandates that benefit none of their constituents. You want to hold out for an ideal that I don't think has any real chance of passing anymore. Our leaders are cowards.

So, yeah, I realize that the plan has some collateral damage, but what other real-world option actually has any real chance of passing anymore?

Any plan without a public option is a Republican victory. That must not be allowed to happen.

[saracat]

82. I am too angry to reply. i nevr thought the Democratic Party

would scarifce the lives of people just to "win".

[Selatius]

69. The grim situation is Xithras' notion of triage might actually save the most people in the end.

If the Public Option passes according to what Obama said in his great health care speech, then only about 5% of the US would enroll in it, and he was citing CBO estimates that gamed out his notion. If it is that limited, if it is that small, if it is truly that weak, then Xithras' comment literally becomes the last defensive line before total failure because a public option that covers only 5% of the US population would simply be nowhere capable of competing with private health insurance in a way that would curb costs and make GOOD coverage and not just any coverage affordable to all.

We would be stuck with the situation of mandated private coverage with limited cost controls and limited subsidies for everyone else because their income is too high. Given the high inflation rate with health insurance premiums, such a situation would simply cripple the US economy after several years and probably slow its recovery from the Great Recession.

[saracat]

84. True.

[nadinbrzezinski]

49. Here is a book I recommend to you

because what you think will happen, well will not.

Deer Hunting with Jesus

http://www.amazon.com/Deer-Hunting-Jesus-Dispatches-Americas/dp/030733936X

Here is another term you may want to become familiar with. RIGHT TO WORK STATES... when labor in these states is all for it... well you know the power of propaganda...

Prayze you Jesus....

Now this is what Kuch proposed for Single Payer, but reality is that they are trying to sneak this in a way that they can keep the caste system going...

I intend to call my delegation on the morning and draw a line on the sand

[cynatnite]

89. Yes, because we can use the sick and dying to score huge political points against the repukes. n/t

[alittlelark]

91. Did you mean Mexico, not New Mexico?

[ddeclue]

27. State by State Public Option is a fig leaf to provide a non option option.

1) Most states do not allow their state gov'ts to run deficits unlike the Federal government. Thus many legislatures will be prevented from passing a public option because they can't do it without deficit spending or raising taxes.

2) Given the divided nature of government it will be nearly impossible in most states to get a real public option passed because either a state Senate, a state legislature or a Governor will "stand in the doorway and block up the hall".

3) This will allow the insurance company lobbyists to divide and conquer - instead of having to face this on somewhat (not really) even terms they will be able to pour national levels of money into state legislatures one at a time and spend huge amounts of money while we won't be able to muster similar levels of support FOR a public option in each of the state capitols because it will be viewed as a state issue.

Imagine if this was how LBJ had decided to bring Civil Rights and Voting Rights reform in the 1960's - in individual state legislatures!

It would have never ever happened.

The Federal gov't needs to set a REAL floor with a REAL FEDERAL PUBLIC OPTION. If states want to go ABOVE that by offering government provided healthcare equivalent to the U.K's "National Health" or a single payer program on a state level that exceeds the REAL FEDERAL PUBLIC OPTION then fine BUT THIS IS NOT A FLOOR JUST A RACE TO THE BOTTOM.

This will offer these Senators a fig leaf so they can pretend that they passed reform when in fact they have just sold us out to the insurance companies.

Shame on them!

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[anonymous171]

28. Even insurance companies don't have the resources to hire lobbyists for all 50 states

The logistics would be a bit much, even for them, don't you think?

[ddeclue]

41. You're kidding right? I personally know the Executive Director for LISA

(Life Insurance Settlement Association) and he has to spend 90% of his time flying from state capital to state capital with occasional stops in D.C. and at home in a never ending battle with Life Insurance lobbyists being fought in all 50 capitals year after year.

Do you think the Health Insurance lobby is going to be less capable considering they basically control 1/7th of the US economy?

:crazy:

Of COURSE they'll do what I said and probably MORE.

:crazy:

[Captain Hilts]

100. If Anheuser Busch can do it, the insurance companies certainly can. nt

[ProSense]

32. This is not the state-by-state plan. It is a national plan allowing states to opt out

details

[TorchTheWitch]

37. It allows opting out of the PO ONLY

In other words, there would still be a national mandate but each state can opt out of allowing their citizens to access the PO portion of the bill.

THIS IS EVIL SHIT!!!!

[Ms. Toad]

134. It is not. If a state opts out of the public option,

its residents still need to have access to insurance.

The remainder of the reforms guarantee access, guarantee premium parity, and provide subsidies - none of which have anything specifically to do with the public option. States MUST NOT be allowed to opt out of the insurance reform just because they don't want the public option.

[ddeclue]

43. Nit. Picking. It will amount to the same thing.

[ProSense]

50. No it isn't remotely the same thing.

The plan to allow states to implement their own public option put the onus and burden on states. Implementing a national plan then allowing states to opt means states will have to go through the process of rejecting an existing national plan. It isn't remotely the same thing.

[inna]

55. good point. i hope you're right about this. nt

[Laelth]

56. A national mandate is unacceptable without a "robust" public option available in every state.

Allowing any state to opt out is a massive sell-out to insurance industry pressure.

What happened to "No public option is not an option"?

:dem:

-Laelth

[berni_mccoy]

87. I think there's a misunderstanding. It would be the Federal Public Option... but states

could opt-out. You are making it sound like they would have to make their own public option, but that isn't what the concept is. It allows a state to opt-out of allowing the public option as a choice to their citizens. It will put tremendous political pressure on local politicians if they do try to opt-out.

[lumberjack_jeff]

45. Hmm. On its face this would seem to further limit the buying power of the public option.

If the public option that states were allowed to opt out of is based on medicare, I think I'd be okay with that.

Realistically, how many states would act to prevent the public option from participating in their exchange?

[Prism]

47. This would be horrifying if mandates are still in place

I think the weak public option accompanying mandates is already placing too much a burden on an already stretched middle and working class. But this?

Just take them out in the yard and put a bullet in them. Why draw it out?

[kath]

59. Well, that sucks. Big time.

[ipaint]

61. As usual, violent, punishing, exclusive conservative policy

railroads lift all boats, inclusive, democratic policy.
Way to go.
That's change for you, a change in targets that is.

[anonymous171]

66. I'm tired of dragging red states behind us.

Let them wallow in their own mess for a while. It will be good for them.

[ipaint]

68. Baloney

Red states are full of blue people who support democrats. Collectively we are one country. Health care is a right and apparently for the heartless fools in this thread, a right only made available to supporters of democrats who live in the politically correct states.

[kenny blankenship]

62. Does that mean the individual mandate wouldn't apply in those states?

[GreenPartyVoter]

63. I can't see the Repubs allowing the mandate to stand if there are no services rendered.

[kenny blankenship]

78. I've learned never to draw lines ruling out what Republicans will or won't do

based on the idea that this would be too despicable, even for them, or that would be too unjust, even for them.

[TorchTheWitch]

81. there would still be a mandate

This only allows states to opt out of the PO if they want to... everything else would still apply. They are gambling that states won't opt out of the PO because poeople would lynch any state politicians that would allow their citizens to be forced to buy expensive insurance whether they could afford it or not.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

65. I have a... friend who supports this.

He's bemused by the idea. He sees it as revenge for 2004. In fact, were it up to him, he'd extend it to include all number of social benefits.

[Trekologer]

74. In a way it may force people to stop voting wedge issues and vote their own interests

n/t

[ipaint]

80. Not by threatening them with their lives.

You get lifelong enemies that way.

[anonymous171]

94. We would not be the ones preventing them from getting healthcare.

Their GOP reps would.

[ipaint]

96. And the federal government with your enthusiastic support allowed

americans to be denied the basic right to affordable care from the fed. government solely based on living in a politically red state controlled by repubs.

A potential death sentence for millions of americans. How democratic.

Can we do this to the right to abortions (we are almost there anyway) and civil rights next?

[anonymous171]

97. It's actually quite democratic. If they want healthcare, they should elect actual democrats

Instead of republicans and corporate blue dogs.

[ipaint]

101. And if they are not the red majority?

suffer and die because the federal government isn't going to protect your right to health care.

[anonymous171]

106. I am actually talking about the red majority.

Republicans need healthcare too.

[ipaint]

105. No it's not. It's tyranny of the majority, not at all democratic. n/t

[cynatnite]

83. We will lose our insurance at the end of the month and we live in TN...

This fucking compromise fucks us.

[saracat]

85. We are living off our non existtant 'retirement'. we live in a red state

and lost our insurance when my husband 's job was outsourced.We pay through the nose for private insurance and it is only a matter of time till our money runs out.But these folks think we are collateral damage.I am just sick, and in shock that some on this thread call themselves Democrats.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

86. Well, I'd not want to be the elected official who decided to opt-out of a PO if there's a mandate

What the hell are the Republicans thinking? This will blow up in their faces. People in the opt-out states will be struggling to afford outrageous insurance premiums, and they're going to be very upset to hear how those in the other states get a more affordable PO.

[anonymous171]

92. They believe that this will be bad in the long run

Just like they believed that Social Security would be bad in the long run. They will be proven wrong (again.) But before that they will want nothing to do with programs that might seem "socialist."

[ipaint]

98. Who is "they"?

The right is a small national minority concentrated in southern states, which gives them a majority in some of those states. Everyone suffers in those states because the a rabid national minority resides in some of them?

Divide and conquer and once again the insurance companies are the winners.
Chumps.

[anonymous171]

107. The GOP. nt

[RagAss]

95. If it's not Federal......it's Fucked !

[Captain Hilts]

99. If you're in Texas, SC or Miss, you're SOL!!!! nt

[BlooInBloo]

103. The vindictive part of me loves this. Let the crappy states with their crappy leaders...

and their crappy electorates opt out. Then they watch, wallowing in the ailments of their own perpetuation, as the civilized states get healthier and healthier for cheaper and cheaper.

It's wrong of me, sure. But I've had just about enough of this country being driven straight into the ditch time after time by those worthless fucks of states.

Oh - and when they want to join the program, let them. But only after they make a public statement on the floor of Congress, something to the effect of:

"We the people of (state name) do request to join the national healthcare program. We apologize for all of the lies and fearmongering we participated in. We further insist that all contraception, abortions, and women's healthcare issues broadly be covered by the very American, very patriotic, national healthcare program."

Then let them join.


EDIT: Yes, I know it's not very mature of me. You can't have everything.

[ipaint]

110. Especially those who die as a result of being unlucky enough to live in a red state.

As if these states are populated solely by the rabid right.

But hey, you got yours. That's what is important.

[BlooInBloo]

112. My strong preference always has been and always will be for flatly national health care...

The red states are the ones blocking it.

I'm sorry the electorates of those states elect such crappy leaders. I don't see why people in the rest of the country should live and die with bad health one day longer just because those states can't manage to elect decent people.

I am not in favor of letting red states drag the entire country down with them. It's happened too many times.

[Warren Stupidity]

116. It ain't our fault that STUPID is a majority in the former confederacy.

So yes I feel for those who will suffer under this (if it is real of course) but we cannot sacrifice all progress just because idiocy is a voting majority in one region of the country. Move. Organize and vote the cretins out. Don't blame us because Dumb Rulez where you live.

[LynneSin]

125. OMG, I'm not the only one that thinks that

I know it sounds awful. But the people of these states have been electing this horrible people for DECADES now. Perhaps something like this will pull their collective heads out of their ass and make them realize that their elected officials do NOT represent them but the most vile & exclusionary special interests known in this country. Perhaps a wake-up call like this would finally get them to wise-up and throw the bums out and learn about what we democrats are fighting for when it comes to healthcare reform.

But then again I live safely tucked away in a Blue state and I do know that these are the lives of people we are dealing with. Perhaps the vile republicans that run these red states don't care about the people in them but the rest of the country do. So knowing that my blue state is safe, I would want to reach out to those states at risk and make sure they get the same health coverage as I do.

[BlooInBloo]

130. :) It's all good. It's just a reverse-psychology trick for idiots anyway...

How do you get your whiny, not-so-bright kid to do something he doesn't want to do? Tell him he can't.

[Brickbat]

143. Totally agree.

Those states keep talking about how much hell the federal government is. For once, for one damn time, I'd like to say, Fine. Live without it. Knock yourself out and and get along with your bad self. But this time, don't come crying to the back door like you have before, sheepishly holding out your goddamn hat and taking far more federal money than you put in. I'm tired of subsidizing that shit. HEAR ME? TIRED!

Ahem. Clearly you struck a nerve.

[BlooInBloo]

145. "Clearly you struck a nerve." - I seem to have that effect on people. Can't imagine why.

:P

Let the record reflect that I am a MASTER of the reverse-psychology game.

[Joe Fields]

104. If the whole debacle wasn't so sad and chilling, I would be more

amused and bewildered by the hordes of people on this site (can't even call them liberals or progressives) who thought, and still think that a good bill will magically appear on the president's desk. Then there are those here who still play dem politics and truly believe that any bill is a good one, because it puts one in the Obama "win" column.

[SammyWinstonJack]

138. +1

:thumbsup:

[SpartanDem]

108. dupe

[SpartanDem]

109. Remember the all bluster about not taking stimulus money?

I'm willing to bet no state is going to opt out it's actually a very good idea

[ipaint]

111. How many lives are you willing to bet on? n/t

[SpartanDem]

113. How many lives are lost if we all get nothing?

Like said these red staters are likely not going opt out and if a few red states drop it the rest of us don't suffer.

[BlooInBloo]

114. Almost all of you are suckers for simple reverse-psychology.

:rofl:

[Warren Stupidity]

115. Then where are we? One step closer to a new confederacy.

Let them opt out. Perhaps over time the people of the red states will wise up and toss out the idiots in charge. Meanwhile the rest of us can get back to work building a progressive compassionate society. We will be better off without them. The public option would have enough of a base without the Lands of the Stupid to do just fine as the seed corn for single payer medicare for all (for some value of all.)

[gkhouston]

121. If that's the latest thing the Republicans are floating, they must know they're gonna lose.

Think about it: they don't want any reform at all. They've been pushing for no reform, then for various flavors of meaningless reform, and now they're falling back to this flavor of semi-meaningless reform? Yes, for many states, it would mean no public option, but the blue states would go for a public option. If this is truly the "compromise" position they're trying to put forward now, they must be very afraid of losing altogether.

[Romulox]

123. This will promote more of the state vs. state race to the bottom, just like "right to work"...

The corporatist win coming and going.

[ecstatic]

126. Might be brilliant in a way...wouldn't that doom the republican governors?

Especially when their constituents talk to their relatives/friends in blue states who are now covered by insurance? Honestly, I don't think they would dare turn the public option down, especially if a pro-active group gets really vocal in the local media about how many people are uninsured or being screwed by insurance companies.

[madokie]

137. I think maybe the ones who opt out will do it early for show

then a few weeks later after all the hoopla settles down they will reverse themselves so as to have fuel for re-elections but all this was mostly to show President Obama how the cow eats teh cabage so to say, so they think. :-) In the end we'll get some healthcare and there will be enough voters to know how this all came about as for this to not being a blight on the President or the dem congress critters. the :puke: have fucked up and way over stepped the bounds of doing the decent thing that after all the dust has settled over this and a couple more elections down the road we won't have to worry about their stinking asses anymore for a long long time. :woohoo:

[gkhouston]

139. Make the public option Medicare, then let state politicians wrestle with the consequences

of opting out. }(

[mod mom]

140. Won't the very sick & medically needy move to other states alleviating the red states & burdening

all those who adopt it? It doesn't sound fair to me. there were many who were adamantly against Bu$h's Iraq War but we didn't get to opt out of throwing money at the war profiteers, did we? They lost an election, but they're still part of the union.

[AlinPA]

147. I'm OK with it. While it may have short term pain, the republicans will be voted out or they will

accept. People want the public option - red state or blue state.

[mullard12ax7]

148. Then we're 1 step closer to GETTING THE RED STATES KICKED OUT

Draw a line from the top of Texas to the east cost -- the top of N. Carolina -- and force all the states below the line to secede from The United States, those state are not "united" with us and never will be.

[Kitty Herder]

149. That is NOT fair to those of us living in red states. We may have to move en masse. nt