Schumer: Opt-Out Public Option Gaining Steam

[joeycola]

Source: TPM




Schumer: Opt-Out Public Option Gaining Steam
Brian Beutler | October 8, 2009, 10:58AM


We're chasing the ball on a new idea (is it a trial balloon? is it the magic answer?) to pass a health care bill with a public option that states--likely small, and conservative states--could choose not to participate in.

As I reported last night, the idea comes from Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE), and is being pushed by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY)--a man with no shortage of clout on the Hill. Appearing on MSNBC a few moments ago, Schumer said the idea's gaining traction.

"That's one of the things being very seriously considered," Schumer said. "I'm not going to -- we have a range of things we're considering. Senator Carper and I met for quite a while last night and made progress and talked to a large number of members last night, yesterday. And I am optimistic that there will be some kind of public option in the bill the president signs. I'm very optimistic."


Read more: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/schumer-opt-out-public-option-gaining-steam.php?ref=mp

[skipos]

1. Nate Silver at

fivethirtyeight.com has some reasons why this compromise is one of the better ones. I am not sure we need to compromise though.

[joeycola]

2. Dems continue to compromise/water down cause they forget they WON.

[Aramchek]

51. if they pass the opt out, and red states actually opt out, there will be massive gop losses in 2010

[Tansy_Gold]

79. Yeah, and how many people -- including DEMS -- will die as a result

This is a horrible horrible horrible idea.

Horrible.

I can't believe ANY Dem is encouraging it.




Tansy Gold

[niceypoo]

92. GOP = Death

Dem = Life

[paulk]

143. why would people die as a result?

even without a public option, the bill requires insurance companies to insure everyone, even those with pre-existing conditions. Those who can't afford to pay will be subsidized.

The public option would force competition on the health insurers and (in theory) bring down the cost of insurance. States that reject it would pay more - but there would still be universal insurance.

You (and several others) have made this claim numerous times now - I would appreciate an explanation of your reasoning that an opt out would cost lives.

[niceypoo]

91. I agree

This would turn a lot of people against the GOP in red states. Im all for it. Anything that hurts the GOP saves lives.

[No Elephants]

111. This would also cause deaths in red states, though. Well, allow them to

continue, anyway.

[Arkana]

112. I don't think there will be many states that opt out--if any.

I guarantee you that governors will opt out at their own peril.

My only question is--if a governor opts out and gets beaten for reelection, does that mean the new governor can opt-in?

[BrklynLiberal]

5. I agree. NO compromise. Medicare for all.

[Inuca]

8. Do you really think that

Medicare for all is going to pass within the say next six months? Do you think that if nothing passes within the next six months there is any chance of ANYTHING even half-way decent to pass in the foreseeable future?

[saracat]

18. Well, if we can't pass it NOW, with the presidency and the majority in both houses

we are worthless and don't deserve to be reelected. Why is it the GOP can pass what they want but we can't? is it that we too are just as beholden to the corporations? Why is Obama kissing GOP ass? And why is unnecessary bipartisanship and un reciprocated bipartisanship more important than peoples lives?

[Cant trust em]

28. Our majority isn't worth much when it contains the likes of Blanche Lincoln and Baucus. nt

[MNDemNY]

32. Well, we did elect a corporatist.

You reap what you sow.

[Kermitt Gribble]

103. So you're willing to settle for anything?

A majority of the American people want Medicare for all. It is our duty to hound our elected reps relentlessly until they give us what we want, not to meekly accept whatever they decide to give us.

The idea of giving states the option to opt out of a public option is bullshit. Give each individual the option to opt in to Medicare, regardless of age.

[Nederland]

127. No Compromise == No Change

I guess you're happy with the status quo.

[BrklynLiberal]

3. Is this the plan where the state in which I live gets to choose whether I have insurance or not?

[Tansy_Gold]

7. Yours and mine, too. You think Kyl is gonna "opt-in" so women

can get maternity care that he doesn't need?

:sarcasm: or whatever.



Goddess but I hate these stupid fuckers!

[saracat]

11. Hey Tansy! A lot of folks on the board today think this is a good thing

because we need to be "punished" in states like ours..Then we can be forced toa ccept the PO by death and bankruptcy!
I hate the stupid fuckers too!


Michael Jackson was right
"They Don't Care About Us"

[Divine Discontent]

21. you're right - it's absolute BS to say the millions of taxpayers in these

states couldn't get the public option just because a republican controlled state won't allow it! What do they want, mass migration to more progressive states? The small states would be decimated by that!

They already HAVE the option to not be included in the public option, that's why it's not Universal Healthcare - the dumbass bastards.....


:mad:

[saracat]

34. Thanks. I am too angry! Fixed it and you are correct Dumbass Bastards

GOP Appeasers.

Michael Jackson Was Right
"They Don't Care About Us"

[Divine Discontent]

35. AMEN! DUMBASS BASTARDS... seriously, I share your anger - what sick sick sick people.

[WyLoochka]

76. This is the opposite of "appeasement"

It really puts the Repubs on the hot seat - for a change!

Let there be effects to all their mean, exaggerated rhetoric and lies. The Repubs don't really believe alot of what they say. They just want to stop any and all Democrats. because, with the exception of the blue dogs, Democrats have the policies the people want.

This isn't "punishment" - it's giving blue states what they want and red states what they "say" they want. It's entirely appropriate, given the 100 year long stubbornness of the Repubs that has resulted in blocking decent health care for everyone.

Let the blue states go first and join the public option - the red states will be clamoring to get in after awhile. If they don't they'll lose businesses and population.

[No Elephants]

114. States are artificial entities. Individuals are human beings. You are saying it is all right

to jeopardize the health, lives and finances of people because a majority of their state legislature is Republican. That is a morally indefensible position, IMO.

122 people die every single day for lack of affordable health insurance.

[Diane R]

Sounds like you are in a red state. I have a question for you....

If your state 'opts out', do you think it would put pressure on voters in your state to reject their republican representatives and elect democrats? I'm wondering if this might not be a brilliant strategy by Dems to expose republicans to their constituents for who they really are, what they vote for, and pay a price at the polls? Would there be anger from your states residents if they don't have the opportunity to participate in the public option?

Your thoughts? I'm not convinced I'm right on this, so I would really appreciate the perspective of someone from a red state.

[saracat]

27. Hah! This is exactly the strategy our state party thinks is gonna work

in 20019.They say we should be "grateful" for our local losses that we could have won. Hell ,no this isn't gonna work in our state. This will inflame the GOP to work even harder against us.And it isn't reasonable to destroy people and cause them to die to make political points. This is one sick and ineffective strategy.

[rudy23]

33. My red state would stand and applaud Jindal for opting out.

All the GOP pols have to do is beat the free market/gov't is bad drum, and they'll face no negative consequences from their constituents.

[laughingliberal]

109. It is not apparent to me that Jindal would be the one to decide

I do think the original idea I saw expressed a preference for the opt out mechanism being a referendum.

[No Elephants]

115. How, under the Constitution, can the feds force states to hold a referendum?

At most, the feds can leave it to the legislature and the state legislature can either make the decision or order a referendum. (See the approach taken by the 17th Amendment.)

[laughingliberal]

119. The states may well be able to make the decision themselves but

all states have some mechanism for citizens getting issues on the ballot. If you are in a state that decides to opt out by some other mechanism I suggest a little activism.

[ieoeja]

135. The word is "permit" not "force".

The Feds could certainly offer insurance to every person in the United States except to those in states where a referendum of the people decides Federal insurance should be banned.

The Feds are not forcing anyone to hold a referendum. They are just defining procedures a state can use to ban Federal insurance IF THE STATE WANTS TO.

[BrklynLiberal]

72. When you have people ON MEDICARE out protesting against government involvement in health care, you

cannot count on them being smart enough to know that it is the repukes fault that they will either die or go into bankruptcy for lack of health care.

[Iowa]

73. This isn't a game. Our way of life (and sometimes our very lives) are lives at stake.

Progressives should move past the notion that electing more Democrats will solve anything. We have been there, and done that. The more of these worthless turds we elect, the further to the right they move. We could have 100% of the House, 100% of the Senate, AND the WH, and they'd still find a way serve the corps. So I could give a flying fuck whether the red states send a corporate whore "R", or a corporate whore "D", to Washington.

I just listened to Iowa's pathetic excuse for a Governor, Chet Culver (D), deliver an edict that he will impose an immediate 10% across-the-board cut on top of previous cuts, due to an 8.4% revenue projection reduction. He immediately ruled out any tax increases whatsoever. Funding priorities will be given to prison guards, health care for children (their parents can crawl off and die), and (get this) Workforce Development "to help people polish their resumes"... yeah, I shit you not - he actually said that. The worst governor in Iowa history (IMO) was Terry Branstad (a Republican), and as I was listening to Culver (a Democrat) I was struck by how much he sounded like Branstad. Branstad could have given that speech - there was zero difference.

The Democratic party is no longer what it once was, and relying on electing more of them won't solve a thing.

[saracat]

82. Yeppers, except in very few cases,I suspect you are correct.

I think the GOP ate the DEms. It would appear so anyway.

[No Elephants]

122. Deleted dupe. Sorry.

[No Elephants]

123. I write my elected representatives once a week saying

I will not vote Democratic again unless a strong public option passes.

[SammyWinstonJack]

137. +

The Democratic party is no longer what it once was, and relying on electing more of them won't solve a thing. :thumbsup:

[TheCoxwain]

25. It is 'accept' - not 'except'. They have very different meanings.

:hi:

[saracat]

31. Fixed it.Anger effects my spelling. I can't see straight.

:hi:

[Jackpine Radical]

55. Hah. It gotcha again. "Affects," not "effects."

:hide:

[saracat]

63. Some days its like that.I am working on becoming illiterate!

I want to fit in in my state.

[Jackpine Radical]

81. Perfect.

:rofl:

[blm]

42. You think the businesses in your state will ALLOW the pols to opt out once they crunch the numbers

and see how opting out hurts their bottom line?

I can't think of ANY profit-conscious realty firm, homebuilder, mortgage company or local financial institution who will want their state to reject public option.

[saracat]

44. You really don't know my state. All those institutions are against funding Public Education

though states with good education attract business. You are uninformed. They would oppose it. they also oppose creating "Green jobs"

[blm]

45. That is true at THIS date....but, the math will hit these folks soon enough.

And I am VERY informed, saracat, and disagree with you based an optimistic view of the greedy coming around on this to protect their own profts. And....being informed helps me make my points without insulting others or attacking them.

[saracat]

61. I apologize for insulting you blm. I am just very angy at the proposed gamble of

the health and livelihood of all of those in my state, including me. Folks supposing we can just move really infuritate me. With what money? this is the "let them eat cake" argument. Some of us have dedicated our lives to the Democratic Party and to say we should "suffer" and possibly lose all we own to make political points is really upsetting.The so called math has never made a differnce in the business outlook of this state.They don't have much business anyway.They don't care.they rely on tourism and much of it is from abroad.The major businesses left awhile ago.

[blm]

64. For how long though? Any business with an ounce of savvy for their profit margins will come down

like a hammer on any pol pushing to opt out.

It really sounds strange, but, for this issue, I'm COUNTING on the greed of many of these bastards to kick in when they take a stark look at what will happen should their legislators refuse PO for their state.

Remember the stimulus money and all the GOP asshats (Boehner, Palin, Jindal, Sanford) who grandstanded their rejection of those funds.....and then they heard from the businesses who NEEDED the work that would come from those stimulus funds.

[saracat]

67. I understand but this has been going on for at least 20 years and they don't get it.

They still believe the recession is caused by not enough tax cuts and propose we increase them yet again refusing to believe that the last 10 years of tax cuts has contributed to the states fiscal woes. They are selling our State capital and State Senate bldg because we have no money because we have no income and they still don't get it.Trust me, it will NOT make a difference to them.
These are the folks that voted to allow guns in bars and want to abolish public education. These are the folks that overwhelmingly support the infamous Sheriff Joe, even when he doesn't bother to serve warrants or arrest murders because he is chasing illegals! No, they will opt out for sure.

[blm]

78. I highly doubt it...I don't see them ABLE to pull that much wool nowadays...but...we'll see.

.

[laughingliberal]

107. I haven't read the plan as giving the US Senator from the state the power to decide

whether that state opts out or not. My preference, and that of many lawmakers, is to make the mechanism for opting out a referendum. Putting it in the hands of the voters is a good idea. Support for the public option is up among all voters: Democtats, Independents, and Republicans.

[No Elephants]

120. Please see Reply #115.

[laughingliberal]

129. As I said in reply #119 all states have some mechanism whereby

citizens can get issues on the ballot. A little work, of course, but doable. I live in a fairly Republican state with a power hungry governor but I do believe we will have a say in it if the opt-out plan is implemented. Not a huge fan of this idea but it is a decided improvement over no public option or an opt-in plan.

[Lorien]

101. Exactly. Come on Dems! If now isn't the time to show some spine

when IS the time?

Hi BrklynLiberal! :hi:

[lumberjack_jeff]

106. Yes. As opposed to the plan in which the state YOU live in gets to choose for me.

I dislike being held hostage. If your elected officials want to shoot you in the foot, I see no compelling moral need to place my foot atop yours.

[No Elephants]

118. States are not choosing anything right now. It's the Senators. And, they are doing so

despite polls indicating that the voters in their states want a public option. This is insurance companies choosing for all of us. We MUST stop this in Congress.

[No Elephants]

113. More likely, You will HAVE to have insurance, BUT your state will decide if you have a public option

[newspeak]

116. what fekkin public option?

It looks like it's going to be another corporate give away to the health insurance industry. Since, it looks like the government will be contracting the industry for that so-called public option.

I'm just so tired of the American corporate greedfest. I'm just tired and sick of it all. It's just another fekkin giveaway and the citizens in this country get burned again.

[saracat]

4. What a revolting bunch of pigs they all are.And people think

Schumer was one of the "good guys". Winning is everything, the people don't matter. Political strategy is everything and lives are just collateral damage.



Michael Jackson was right
"They Don't care About Us"

[BrklynLiberal]

6. The operative word in your post is "WAS". I would NEVER vote for Schumer again.

I did not vote for him when he ran the last time.

[LSparkle]

10. Bingo! Winning IS everything for them ... doesn't matter what the bill looks like n/t

[grytpype]

12. What is wrong with you people?

If you don't get absolutely everything you want right now, everyone is a pig.

Get over yourself.

[MNDemNY]

48. But "we " are gettingNOTHING.

[Tansy_Gold]

60. There's a big ass difference between "absolutely everything"

and "absolutely nothing."

I don't know what state you're in, but I'm in Arizona. We used to have a solidly Democratic governor who kept the effects of our wingnut legislature from turning us into another Kansas (apologies to my friend DW if she's reading this), but Obama tapped Janet Napolitano for Homeland Security and we got left with Her Nibs Jan Brewer.

Our public education system is being decimated by the worst of the corporate charter schools.

We have the likes of John McCain -- remember him? He's the one who thought Sarah Palin would make a great President if anything happened to him -- and Jon Kyl -- the one who doesn't think health insurance should offer maternity benefits since HE can't get pregnant -- representing us in the Senate. You know damn well those two would condemn the 7,000,000 or so people in Arizona to NO PUBLIC OPTION. You either get employer-provided insurance, private insurance, Medicare/Medicaid if you're eligible, or nothin'. 'Cause Kyl and McCain and their ilk don't give a rat's ass.

You may not care about the people in Montana or Wyoming, North or South Dakota, Louisiana or any other state whose governors and/or congressional delegations opt them out of a "public option." (which is hardly a "public" option if the public doesn't get the "option.") But I do.

I don't want a governor, any governor, to have the power to deny every citizen in her or his state the chance to obtain affordable health care. I guess you, however, don't have a problem with that.

Fuck you.


Tansy Gold

[saracat]

70. I Love Ya Tansy.Right on again!

:yourock:

[Iowa]

74. Well said. Especially the "Fuck you" part.

[Tansy_Gold]

75. Yeah, well, I thought it was the proper response to

"Get over yourself," which is what the poster I replied to said.


TG

[laughingliberal]

108. It is not a given that the state legislators or governors or any other elected

officials will have the opt out power. The original idea I read was for the decision to be by referendum.

[No Elephants]

121. Please see Reply #115. Feds may have the power to force states to hold a referendum, but

I don't know of one. I could be behind the times, though.

[JoeyT]

141. Alabama here, and I'm not much happier than you.

It's kinda fun to see how rapidly your "allies" abandon you when it becomes convenient. So can one of the wankers that support opt out explain to some of us red staters why we should support democrats at the national level anymore, since we don't count? Especially since most of us gave just as much money and time as you did to helping elect the party that's willing to throw us under the bus. Getting death threats when we call to ask people if maybe they'd like to vote for the smart one for a change wasn't exactly a picnic.

Hell we won't have the money to support democrats at the national *or* local level anymore once we're required by federal law to buy insurance from a company that knows they not only have us over a barrel, but that our so called progressive so called allies helped set the barrel on fire to make sure we paid in.

I can't stress this enough: If you're in favor of opt out for states the only difference between you and a neo-con is the neo-con admits they don't care about other people and you lie to yourself about it. Which sorta makes you worse. I'd be horrified if it was proposed my state get health care and one of yours didn't. If you're not horrified at the reverse, you're not a decent human being. If you don't like the way that shoe fits, stop trying the damn thing on.

I Got Mine, Fuck You!: Not just for Republicans and Libertarians anymore. (Though technically this would be "I'm gonna get mine even if it fucks you." which is kinda a little scummier.)

[kjackson227]

142. JoeyT, this post exactly explains the sentiments of some of our Democratic...

brethren. Sad, isn't it?

[fascisthunter]

13. I hear ya

[dflprincess]

20. Schumer was running the DSCC when he helped shoved Amy Klobuchar

down our throats in Minnesota rather than the truly progressive candidate who was also running for the DFL endorsement.

I haven't thought a lot of him since then.

[kjackson227]

9. What in the hell are we supposed to do in my state??? I guess...

since I live in a red state, we don't deserve hcr??? This is so unfair, and it really pisses me off.

[jtrockville]

15. Load your state government with progressives?

Fat chance I suppose. It's a shame that the states with folks who need this most are the ones most likely to opt-out.

[Divine Discontent]

22. which is the exact reason why it cannot be allowed - we are the large majority party &

we run the White House - no watered down public option. I'm sure you agree it should be that way, and I hope those in the states where this could happen call their senators and their rep on this. Of course, being in FL, I guess I'm at a pretty strong likability that this could happen here!

[jtrockville]

138. I much prefer SINGLE-PAYER to a "no watered-down public option"

A "no watered-down public option" shouldn't even be on the table, except as a last resort. Given our majority, I'm STILL angry that it was taken off the table from the beginning.

But as I've read from several posters here at DU, this is how Canada got their start. We could do much worse than to follow in their footsteps.

[kjackson227]

23. Well, that would be great if I had the power to do IT by myself. I have supported...

the Dems monetarily and time-wise just as much if not more than others from blue states, so I don't appreciate being crapped on.

[saracat]

62. Exactly.

[jtrockville]

139. I don't appreciate that the country is considering crapping on you either.

And it does seem that the folks who need this the most live in states that will likely opt-out.

BUT

Once states that opt-in show success, it will be MUCH harder for your state to opt-out.

I absolutely don't think it's fair. No one should have to wait.

[gkhouston]

68. You're assuming the elections are honest. There aren't even paper trails in my state. n/t

[cosmicone]

46. This is a great idea...

This allows for the bill's passage and when the public option lowers insurance rates in the states which opt-in, the residents of the states who chose to opt-out will force the politicians to opt-in as well.

It is a clever way of starting something that people would eventually want!!! Far far better than the "trigger" stupidity.

[kjackson227]

53. I understand the strategy, I just hope you're right.

[No Elephants]

125. It is a cowardly, morally bankrupt idea. Please see Reply # 114.

[No Elephants]

126. It is a cowardly, morally bankrupt idea. Please see Reply # 114.

[WyLoochka]

49. I feel exactly the opposite

I want my red state to follow through on the fake "cowboy-libertarian" selfishness that so many here are entranced with and "opt-out."

It is the only way that the diehard 2/3 of the people in this red, red state will have a chance to be brought out of the fog of delusion they have been clinging to so tightly.

When the chips are down, and the state has opted us out and we have to sit here and watch the states that stayed in take care of their people and experience decreasing premiums and health costs and increasingly beneficial outcomes - these fake "cowboy-libertarians" will scream to get "opted-in."

This is a brilliant turning of the tables. I am tired of the entire country being so harmed by the people and Senators from the small population red states.

If they want to continue the harm - let them do it only to themselves. Remove the rest of the states from the effects of their mean, puny, stingy minds.

[kjackson227]

54. and maybe it will make more Dems come out and vote...

I just wish I wasn't part of this psychological experiment.

[hay rick]

69. Shoe on the other foot.

I live in a blue state. I'm supposed to accept too expensive private insurance because your state won't opt in on a public option?

Devil's advocate here.

[No Elephants]

128. Wrong framing. The only reason you would have to accept expensive

private insurance is if 60 Senators, Ried, Obama and the DNC don't do the jobs we've elected and supported them to do. They should not be leaving it to the states. That is cowardly and heinous, given that 122 people die each and every day for lack of affordable health care, not to mention the bankruptcies.

I can't believe Democrats are ready to throw people to the wolves just bc they live in a red state, rather than insist Demorats in D. C. FINALLY do their jobs.

[hay rick]

140. Addressing the argument, not the issue.

Post said it was unfair for red state people not to have access to a public option available in blue states. My point was that it is equally unfair for blue state people to be denied a public option just because red states don't want it and universal coverage folks won't accept half a loaf. Two wrongs don't make a right.

On the issue: I favor a single-payer or strong nationwide public option. Private for-profit health insurance is nobody's friend.

[dflprincess]

14. If they pass this,

they damn well better include a clause that allows states to develop their own single payer plans if they choose to.

[jwirr]

66. Is the Kucinich bill for this still alive?

[fascisthunter]

16. F you Chuck!

I have no patience for dems like this. And don't go hiding behind that bi-partisan bullshit front either. You either represent the people or the corporations.

[loudsue]

17. The reason this is a bad idea is not only that a great many would be left behind...

but also most states are almost bankrupt as it is, since the Bush years took all the money away from the states to pay for the war in Iraq....and Obama has kept a lot of those budget cuts, and added some of his own to cut the budget. States will have NO MONEY to put toward these options, and will likely opt out because they can't afford to do their part.

[valerief]

19. Huh? It'll be federally funded. And people who want it will move out of their

repressive states to ones with democracy OR they'll give their congress critters the boot.

[saracat]

24. Really.What are you, a spolied child? With what money will they move?

And what jobs would they be moving too? And what about those to ill? Let them die? What is this" Compassionate Conservatism?

[valerief]

26. That's right. Let's let EVERYONE die instead. nt

[saracat]

36. Now .Everyone should LIVE. Not just blue states.And there is NO reason for this.

Unreciprocated bipartisanship isn't more important than life. Chuck Schumer said On Scarborogh(Sp) that the Senate would back the President on anything he wanted because they were a "team". If this is so, why don't Obama and the senate want healthcare for ALL? Why are they kissing elephant ass?

[valerief]

37. You're asking me? I guess because they want to syphon off the money for war

and want to gobble up insurance company money.

[No Elephants]

124. Wtf? No one has to die if the Democrats in Washington, D.C. do their jobs.

This is NOT the fault of poor people, whether in red states or blue states, ffs. Congress should NOT leave this to the states!

[MessiahRp]

87. RE: The Jobs question

I suspect once these states have the Public Option that you're going to see jobs move away from Opt Out states to the Opt In states because their health coverage will be cheaper and it will cost less to hire and maintain employees. Currently companies have been going to places like Canada for the same type of reason. I also think once there is public healthcare jobs will significantly increase because there's less of a benefit to outsource them overseas. The healthcare factor of employee costs is a great deal of the reason so many companies aren't employing people in this country now.

Rp

[bluestateguy]

29. I'm all for states rights when it comes to guns, drugs, and education

but not health care.

[valerief]

38. Yeah, for that we should have no rights.

[joeycola]

43. our constitution does not give us that right unfortuately.

[valerief]

102. Yeah, too bad we can't pass amendments any more. The Constitution has those. nt

[tomm2thumbs]

30. wondering how people will sneak around the rules - as they always do - have fake CA addresses, etc

just to get health care? what a sad state of affairs but we all know that Delaware and Nevada didn't become the locations where most folks incorporate because they are nice places to visit - it is because the tax laws favorite that sort of thing, and it created a boom in that industry.

Also wondering if people will be treated in other states without the health insurance option if they are from another state? Isn't that akin to buying across state lines - I mean a relative can have everyone pay for their insurance at their local address but folks all keep their insurance in their own state? Strange, strange, strange. I'm guessing the big population states will go for the health care option, perhaps they should even choose SINGLE PAYER - and it could end up being a good thing if this all happens within a few years as the initial plan for the health care phase-in was planned.

When glass breaks, the cracks move faster than 3,000 miles per hour. I think we just need to crack this SINGLE PAYER thing and it'll take off.

[CL455W4R]

40. Excellent Idea!!!!

I really think this is a brilliant idea. Let the fat, racist, fascist southern conservative pigs die right out. This is awesome! Health-care companies will likely raise rates in the states that opt out to make up for the losses they are taking due to increased competition in the states that do opt in to the public option. Fewer and fewer folks in these backwater Jesus camps will be able to afford insurance.. more of them will die... the population of the confederacy will decrease and with it their number of representatives in the House... and maybe, just maybe in a few years time AMerica will be able to shake off the shackles of the fascist Right, and actually see some true progressive reforms across various topics.

I am delighted by this ... give the Red State Christofascists exactly what they want... but only in their own damn states :) Maybe they'll see the errors of their ways after a few years.

In short... Fuck the South... time to kill off the leeches

[safeinOhio]

39. I think no state will opt out.

There are some big talkers, but when it gets down to it they'll STFU. No state currently opts out of Medicare, yet it is there for them to do it. Just like the stimulus money. They were against it, until they started to beg for their share of it.

[blm]

47. BINGO. And even the biggest corporate assholes will do the math and demand their state opt IN

.

[tomm2thumbs]

50. yup yup - like all the folks who were gonna 'opt out' of Federal funds earlier this year

they all rushed back in and took the money - all blowhards with nothing to back it up

their one little vote in the Senate will be quashed by the outrage back at home

[w4rma]

56. Agreed. I think this is a good idea. Let the Republicans running the little tiny states just try to

opt out. They won't last long.

[twitomy]

41. What kind of "public option" are we talking about?

The kind that everyone is FORCED to pay the insurance companies? If so, I sure hope my state can opt out as I dont want that piece of garbage.

[Swede Atlanta]

52. No, No, No.....

I live in Georgia and trust me Sonny "Chicken Man" Perdue and the nut cases in the Georgia General Assembly would opt Georgia out before the ink was dry on the paper.

I want to live in a nation where I am not discriminated against with respect to a public option simply because my employment has taken me to a state run by right wing fanatics. "Move" you may say. Well that might be a choice in good times but not now.

I'm all for states rights but when it comes to the basic needs for life such as healthcare we need a national plan, not a patchwork that depends on where you happen to live.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

57. I'm calling my Senator and telling him Public Option: or I will do everyting.....

I can to make sure that you, Chuck are not elected again.

[joeycola]

100. I am putting a call in also today.

[bertman]

58. Schumer is the King of the Corporatist Senators. First Wall Street and now Big Insurance.

Screw him. He's a wolf in sheep's clothing.

[No Elephants]

134. These days, almost all of them seem to be, even once liberal Barney Frank. K Street

owns most of them, it seems.

[GinaMaria]

59. Shouldn't it be up to the individual to opt out?

and isn't the public option an um... option? It right in the name. WTF? are these clowns up to?

[bvar22]

65. Schumer and his DLC buddies will do ANYTHING to dilute....

..the collective power of a Public Option.

Do those of you who live in a Blue State really think this will help you?

Since NONE of the "Public Options" currently in Congress are REAL "government run" options ("like Medicare"), the ONLY REAL advantages the current "Public Options" can offer lies in a broad risk base, and the power to negotiate prices from Pharma (if Obama hasn't killed that) or Health Care providers (Doctors).

EVERY state that is "allowed to opt out" further weakens the "Public Option" for EVERY.FUCKING.BODY.

The "Public Option" is already so weak and restricted that it is doubtful it can succeed.
so LETS MAKE IT WEAKER !! YAY!

I can't believe there are people on DU who think this is a good thing.


One thing you can take to the bank:
If Schumer likes it, it is BAD for people who have to work for a living.


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[Baysponge]

71. Who looks out for Red Stare poor!?!

I hope that someone would stand up for the uninsured in red states as well as blue ones. The most recent proposal for a public option would allow states to opt out. Gov. Dean & Sen. Carper & Schumer has talked approvingly. So has Sen. Baucus.

The issue of the public option is ensuring competition. I would hope that someone who add the following limitation to the right to opt out: In order for a state to do so, the state must show that every major market in the state has at least two (2) different insurers that have a market share over a minimum leveI i.e. 25%. This requires some level of private competition to exist PRIOR to opting out.

What could the objection to this limitation be?

[varelse]

77. This is a very BAD idea

Have those fools seriously considered what will happen in the real world when people living in an "opt-out" state start migrating into states where they can get real health insurance coverage without paying a fucking arm and a leg for it?

Small business owners, the self employed, the educated, families with kids... all of them would benefit from a move OUT of such a state. Are they fucking nuts?

[Bonobo]

83. That would create unavoidable political pressure for those states to "opt in". No? nt

[laughingliberal]

132. No. They won't need to opt in. They would have to take action to get out of it

The difference here is the option will be available and states would be required to take action to get rid of it. I do believe it is politically more difficult to take something away than to put something in place. Point is they would not be able to just ignore it as would be the case with opt in.

[depakid]

89. If they don't like it, they can put an initative on the ballot

Otherwise- too bad. Their representatives screwed the rest of us for 8 long years- so pardon me if I'm all out of sympathy.

[No Elephants]

131. You lived in a red country for 8 years. What could you do about it? Would you

think it fair if someone decided it was okay for you to die and/or go bankrupt while others got affordable health care bc you lived in a red country?

This is a cowardly solution bc those in DC are not doing their jobs....again. Direct your anger there, not at people in red states who can no more change their state legislature than you could prevent Bushco from ruling for 8 years.

[Laelth]

80. That would be OK as long as states get to opt out of the individual mandate as well. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[No Elephants]

130. Why is it okay for people to keep dying and going bankrupt?

[spaten]

84. the "political pressure" already exists

dems are punting.
and if pressure on democrats for a public option doesn't work, why would it work on scum republican governors?

[SandWalker1984]

85. Schumer's cop out, opt out!

What don't you people understand? Schumer doesn't propose an opt out of the Baucus bill's private insurance mandate.

What he is trying to do is float a trial balloon on behalf of his insurance masters, the ones that give him lots of payola, like his Wall Street masters give him. They are concerned that we are building up momentum for a true, Medicare-type, not for profit public option. They are frantically trying to get a bill through Congress with the private insurance mandate intact but without a true public option.

The reason that the federal Congress is now debating health care reform is because since 1993 and the last disasterous health care debate, the states have not delivered on real health care reform. Have they?

Don't forget, California passed single payer through both chambers of their state legislature -- and where does the bill stand now? It's unsigned, laying on the desk of Gov Arnie. He refuses to sign it because he claims it costs too much. Never mind how much it would save over the profits of private health insurance.

This is a ploy by certain Democratic party senators to get the monkies off of their backs while still delivering a private mandate for insurance to serve their corporate masters.

Obama recently, before Congress and the American public, made his speech for health care reform and in it he said that HE WOULD NOT FUND A PUBLIC OPTION.


It is looking more and more as though what I've posted here previously is true -- that Obama, earlier this summer, sold us out on real health care reform by making secret deals with big pharma and big insurance.

It is no longer our D team against the R team, it is now us Americans that are enlightened against the corporate team. We don't need a 3rd party, we need a 2nd party.

Don't fall for this latest bait and switch scam being tossed about. It's another Trojan horse. If you know anything about history, you know how THAT worked out for the people.


Kill the Baucus bill before it kills us!

[JDPriestly]

86. Fair enough! Conservatives can have their private insurance if that is what they want.

[No Elephants]

136. How is that fair to people in red states who want a public option?

[turntxblue]

88. As a Texan,

I feel quite certain that I would be on the losing end of this. Remember our governor making national news by speaking of secession? I live in a very small town, and occasionally see pick-up trucks sporting SECEDE bumper stickers. So, I think it's fairly safe to assume that TX would opt out, which is quite upsetting to me. However; if faced with the choice of SOME states getting a public option vs. NO states getting a public option, I would rejoice for those who got one. Eventually, the sane Texans will surface, and vote in some Democrats. In the meantime, the insurance companies will see the writing on the wall. What remains to be seen is how they would interpret it. Would they make all they can, as fast as they can, while they can, or would they actually start running their business in a fair way that would be truly competitive with a public option? Regardless of what happens in my state, I would be grateful that citizens of other states had a choice. If there's one thing that Texans come together on, it's bragging rights. It would be very hard for my Republican fellow Texans to see that other states have a better health care system than Texas.

[GodDamLiberal]

90. Can we quarantine

Those states that opt-out as health risks to the states that opt-in?

[Tansy_Gold]

94. Oh, that's such a helpful and "compassionate" solution.

thank you so much. Your thoughfulness will be remembered.


Tansy Gold

[bemildred]

93. Schumer attempts to sandbag Medicare for all. nt

[dpbrown]

95. Stop watering it down... losers

Democrats won.

[MarjorieG]

96. We need the Option tied to Medicare rates or we won't get the siccess sooner or later. Really want

immediate Medicare to 55, also as a good faith to seniors that other cuts are necessary and will force GOP to vote against it.

[ingac70]

97. If that is the case, I'll just move.

I know the redneck dumbasses running my home state wouldn't opt in.

[GeorgeGist]

98. COP OUT!

[and-justice-for-all]

99. Pathetic and I completly disagree with this...nt

[Kermitt Gribble]

104. Horrible idea.

Schumer is an idiot.

[lumberjack_jeff]

105. Excellent. Freed from the need to pander to the ignorant red states...

... the public option could be as strong as we want.

Tie it to medicare reimbursements and include the Wyden amendment which requires employers to offer a voucher for employees who wish to purchase coverage from the exchange instead.

[No Elephants]

110. Bad,BAD idea. It is enough that a human being can opt in or out. Why

should the life and finances of someone be endangered against his or her will because a majority of his or her state legislature votes the wrong way?

NO government mandates without a strong public option. I don't care if it is the feds who deny the public option or a state that denies it. It's just as wrong.

[slipslidingaway]

117. Opt-In ??? Carper...

http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/10/09/veal-pen-opt-out-gaining-steam-where/

"...How about Carper himself? Let's hear his passionate defense of his own proposal:

DHUE: Now there is another idea out there that would have the Federal government create the plans but let the states opt out of it. Is that a better offer?

CARPER: Or the state could opt in. And there is discussion along those lines. We'll see where those talks may lead..."

[BlooInBloo]

133. Opt-in is just fucking stupid. Opt-out has potential.