A state opt-out PO sounds too good to be true. What am I missing?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

I am in favor of a state opt-out PO as I understand it (which is probably very limited understanding since it's a lot of vague stuff in news reports) because it seems to have no practical downside. And would be a potential political disaster for pugs.

What I cannot understand is how it could appeal to anyone other than a liberal Democrat as a compromise. As described, it seems win-win for Dems and Americans and a stone loser for pugs because I don't think a single state would actually opt out. (If there would be fiscal burdens on states of which I am unaware that would make opt-out more likely.)

Assume a good national public option. It is one option of several in a state-level insurance exchange. Also assume that the federal public option is an attractive option—cheaper and/or better.

There is no way that even the wingiest of wing-nut states would act to remove the federal PO as an option, at least not without speedy repercussions.

Wing-nuts are candy-ass. Chicken hawks. Chronic whiners. (One of Timothy McVeigh's cited reasons for hating the government is that he felt his subsidy for not planting crops was too low!)

If a federal PO is a subsidized welfare scam (the wing-nut view) that doesn't mean RWers are too proud to line up at the trough. In fact, they'd be fools not to. If they believe a federal PO is a give-away funded out of general revenue (inaccurate, but their view) they have a citizen's right to get some of their tax money back.

Now if any of the wing-nut governors had actually failed to get every possible nickel out of the stimulus plan, had cash-for-clunkers been a failure in red America, and if red states were not a perpetual drain receiving more from the federal government than they contribute... then maybe I could imagine a state actually de-listing a federal PO from an insurance exchange.

Medicaid specifically benefits poor people and costs states money (unlike a federal PO), yet they don't opt out of it. Hard to see anyone opting out of an option that helps folks further up the income ladder.

And the threat to the insurance companies is not diminished. Surely nobody thinks NY and CA, NJ, IL and Mass. are going to opt out. That's probably about half the total insurance market right there. (I don' think even Alabama would opt out. Just making a point.)

And how does such a thing address any Blue-Dog concerns? I cannot imagine that anyone's big objection to a national PO is that it would be available in their state.


I just can't see how this would appeal to any pug or right-leaning Dem. Seems like a guarantee of more political trouble down the road for them.


So flesh out my understanding of this thing. What downsides am I missing?

[valerief]

1. Getting attacked for defending it. I was. Of course, we all DESERVE

Single Payer, but we've got the Mob running our country now so we have to beg for crumbs like pigeons in the park.

[Cha]

61. And, Dean said he would vote for it if he were

a Senator..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8690271

And, if it works great..those in the States without it will want to move to those States that have it?

[BlooInBloo]

2. "What am I missing?" - Nothing.

This has been another episode of Simple Answers To Simple Questions.

Oh - and: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/10/opt-me-out-of-public-option-purism.html

EDIT: And it's the most lollercaust piece of reverse-psychology I've ever seen.

[mdmc]

8. lollercaust?

[BlooInBloo]

21. A very common internet-ism, meaning "something that is really really funny"...

I would imagine it's on urban dictionary.

[mdmc]

34. thank you kindly

:toast:

[cliffordu]

15. Lollercaust...

:rofl:

Not fucking bad, bloo - Not bad.....

[BlooInBloo]

16. Aw shit - that's old - had I realized it wasn't well-known here, I woulda used it earlier...

Along with lollercoaster and a bunch of others. :P

[cliffordu]

52. lollapallooza???

:rofl:

[BlooInBloo]

60. Exactly like that!

[SPedigrees]

3. Plenty of us are for it. nt

[CreekDog]

4. Don't give it away before forcing people to vote against it

does anyone know anything about negotiation?

inept. :wtf:

[quantass]

5. It's very clever in that if Repubs dont vote it literally says they are NOT for the people in anyway

If the state has a choice to opt out there is no disadvantage of voting to pass this bill. It's ALL advantages. If they sincerely want to work for the people and feel the PO is not good then they opt out of it....and if later on they see it working elsewhere they opt back in....It's a win-win situation. However, if sometihng "else" is twisting their arm...like being bought out by special interests..then they will still resist this bill and hence without question they are full of shit. We already knew they were full of shit but haivng this opt-out feature is check-mate.

With such a provision is strongly hope thye are pushing for a "STRONG" public option since there will be an opt-out feature.

[hileeopnyn8d]

6. It allows them

to use their old stand-by "that should be left up to the states" meme. Or rather it cuts that particular point off at the knees, which can then be turned against them.

Since they're always saying it should be left up to the states to decide, how can they argue? I'm not saying they'll buy that but that's the argument I plan on throwing back if it should come up.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

7. It's DU.

If Obama singlehandedly invented an immortality potion and provided it to every person on earth with a coupon for a free yogurt at TCBY, half of DU would find a way to bitch about it.

[DevonRex]

13. It's the yogurt, dammit. That ruins The Whole Thing!!!! Why can't you SEE that????

If yogurt is allowed to be included in the package, it won't matter if we will all have immortality! Think of the COWS, man! They have to suffer the degradation of being MILKED for god's sake!

[ellie]

23. Not to mention

any topping would get on the yogurt is filled with potassium benzoate.

Edited to add:

That's bad.

[Engineer4Obama]

25. DO YOU KNOW WHAT THAT WOULD DO TO THE ENVIRONMENT!

Overpopulation man overpopulation.

[Clio the Leo]

9. If someone represented a state/district where "Obamacare" was unpopular.....

.... they could assure their constituents that their state could opt out of it.

But in reality, it will be like the Simulus money .... if a state governor/legislature tries to deny it .... when other states are GETTING it ..... the public, even those who had previously balked at the idea of "the federal government ramming this down our throats" will revolt.

It's genius. 24 hours ago I didn't know who Senator Carper was .... right now I could KISS him on the mouth! :)

[vaberella]

40. Yup, yup. That is exactly what I was thinking. n/t

[Clio the Leo]

10. (dupage) NT

[saracat]

11. I am guessing you don't live a a red state.My state, which isn't

completely red federally, is truly red locally. We ,lost almost all our local races last year and our state Party, which was one of the wealthiest ion the nation, spins that as a"good thing' because it will "teach folks a lesson" and we can swarm to victory in 2010. Only problem is, the GOP are really angry and are now threatening our hard earned congressional seats and it has made our picking up local seats even more unlikely..Not only would our legislature not accept a PO, it would inflame the populace to vote GOP by a huge landslide. They already hate the notion of a mandate. And swift reaction to the devastation? Again, put a time frame on that. Many of us don't have all that much time left.
I resent being used as collateral damage and my health and welfare held cheap because I live in a state that has a jackass of a legislature that we worked tirelessly to defeat.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

19. But they would get the mandate either way

If I thought any states would be left out for real I would oppose it. But I cannot imagine even the worst red state actually acting to block access without being torn up electorally. (Not necessarily by Dems. Moderate pugs can dethrone nuttier pugs.)

We have a difference in perception/prediction of how state legislatures would react in real life, versus posturing. You may be right.

[SPedigrees]

29. As someone pointed out on the other thread, opting out of the public option would be as popular as

opting out of the stimulous package.

[saracat]

31. Opting out of the Stimulus WAS popular in my state.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

32. But not popular enough

[saracat]

35. Really? What would you know? The lack of stimulus fund just about destroyed

our school system, which is their goal and caused most public services that benefit the poor and abused to be sbhut dowm.They finnally took the money but use it for other things and the services arfe not being reinstated.

[Clio the Leo]

41. But ultimately, did any of the states refuse it?

Just looking at Recovery.gov I cant find any state that hasn't accepted at least some stimulus funds. Even the castle of the Wicked Witch of the North Alaska has spent almost $200 million. As much as they complained, everyone took it.

LA, SC, and TX seem to stand out in my mind as the biggest opponents and they've so far spent $800 million, $900 million and $4 billion respectively.

And why is that? Well when it came right down to it the Republican voters wanted the money.

I live in TN and when Gov. Bredesen iniatially said he wouldn't take it, the good citizens bum rushed his office.

[SPedigrees]

22. You do have the option to move. If my state turned red and the only affordable

health care coverage was in the blue states, I'd relocate. Although I had the good fortune to be born in New England, I picked the state I'm living in now. If it all went to hell here, I'd find a new home state. If things improved again I'd move back.

Another more altruistic option is to stay in your red state and fight for change.

[saracat]

30. I used to live in NE as well but on what money could I move back?

We aren't likely to get jobs because of our age, have no family to live with and are already living on the last of our"retirement" . You certainly sound like "Let them eat cake" or don't you realize that?

[SPedigrees]

63. If you are retirement age then you will soon have medicare.

So you are not in the same straits as a young or middle-aged couple without health insurance. Conversely younger persons are more able to find employment and more likely to be able to afford a move.

The fact is that medicare was not such a great plan in its first incarnation, but it was a plan, and it was improved over the years. If people had rejected it back then because it didn't cover every older American for every medical condition, then no one would have this safety net today. Instead the initial version was implemented as a starting point.

[plcdude]

66. I live

in the reddest state in the union and we did not turn down stimulus money. We have a democratic governor but our legislature is republican. I seriously doubt we would turn down the public option.

[Warren Stupidity]

12. Looks like a win to me.

The big states minus texas and florida will be sufficient critical mass to make it work and florida will probably come along too. The republican state parties can commit ideological suicide over this, and then in a few years the holdouts will opt back in.

I have no idea why the fundaloon side of congress is going along with this. What is their upside?

[saracat]

14. Because they know what the red states will really do. Vote the Dems completely out.

In time, the red states could possibly be forced into acceptance of the PO, which is a stupid one anyway, if it is as rumoured, but in the meantime, many would die, or lose their properties.The fact that no one cares says a lot about these folks.These Dems don't care about people.This is really sick.



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

[Warren Stupidity]

17. See here:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/10/opt-me-out-of-public-option-purism.html

Nate Silver is smarter than both of us and he lays the game out pretty clearly. Your fears are unfounded.

[saracat]

33. I see no reason to believe he is smarter than I am nor to I believe my fears are "unfounded"

My "unfounded fears" were correct in the last election , where they wiped out the gains we had made but picked up federal seats.This time we will be wiped out locally again and lose the congressional seats we gained. This is gambling with my life and assets and I will campaign against this.

[Clio the Leo]

42. Nate Silver!!!! purrrr! NT

[Vinca]

18. I'd sure hate to live in Texas and need affordable health care.

[madfloridian]

20. Why do we feel a need to do this opt-out?

Why not just stand for something?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

26. I am not entirely convinced we will get a robust PO

If I thought it was in the bag then of course I wouldn't favor any unilateral weakening on anything.

[madfloridian]

43. Why can't we get a public option? How much of a majority do we need?

How much more of our donations and hard work do they need not to compromise?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

45. I am arguing from an given assumption that a compromise is needed

I would prefer single-payer effective tomorrow.

If a good PO is available without compromise, cool.

[Clio the Leo]

46. How much does "stand for something" cost?

When you are writing a bill, you have to apply practical language .... rhetorical idealism has no real-life application.

[madfloridian]

47. Oh, wow. Now we don't do "rhetorical idealism"?

We don't do stances.

[Clio the Leo]

49. We're writing a budget bill, not a stump speech....

... find me any budgetary bill written in the history of the United States Congress that reads "be it resolved that the United States Congress will stand for something" and I'll send a campaign donation to Dennis Kucinich.

[saracat]

54. really? Well the so called "practical language isn't just language. It is killing people.

[Mass]

24. Depends if you care about politics or about the people?

Politically, it is a winning position. You make the GOP look bad.

But, for the people who live in these states, you are punishing them for their bad leadership when they are the ones who probably need it the most(look at the situation in the Southern states).

Sure, many states would hesitate before opting out, but a few, particularly those whose governors have ambition, would opt out.

So, why not try to shame the Blue Dogs into not filibustering the bill before selling the farm. If they want to offer this in last recourse, OK, but I feel uncomfortable at the idea they would start by that.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

28. You are assuming any state would opt out

My thesis is that no state will opt out.

Given that, it doesn't hurt any citizen.

If one believes that states WOULD opt out (at all, or for more than one state legislature election cycle) then that suggests a different view.

We don't disagree on the morality.

[saracat]

55. Mine would.

[karynnj]

72. I assume many Republican dominated states would - for the same reason that

national Republicans oppose it - ideology.

Their choice would be an exchange with all private plans or an exchange with a public plan as well as the private ones. Their citizens would choose - getting a subsidy for any plan if they qualify.

If they are against big government - they will reject it.

[Clio the Leo]

48. And as someone who lives in TN.........

..... trust me, wont happen. The moderate Dem governor tried it with the Stimulus money and that lasted all of about a day and a half .... even TX, who's governor was one of the biggest opponents of the Stim. bill ... has already spent four billion dollars of the very money they said they didn't want.

There are few things that Bubba will fight for .....

1. his truck
2. his woman
3. his football team

and most importantly...

4. his money.

[Engineer4Obama]

27. It seems to me to be the first compromise that doesn't involve

making the public option less likely to WORK.

[dave29]

36. the right leaners are now given cover. They did not vote for a public option

they voted for or did not filibuster against an optional "national" public option that the state then gets to implement at it's own discretion. I think the odds of 60 votes are better with this plan than any before it... and what's best... it is the best compromise so far.

It truly seems like a win for the Senate. With the House most likely passing a national, robust PO, the final bill will be interesting to behold.

[Engineer4Obama]

37. The fact that its an opt-out is huge

People go for the default position its much harder to get to yes than it is to get to no so that will make it less likely that states would "opt-out" of this plan.

[dave29]

38. agreed, and as I read from Nate Silver

it pretty much forces the insurance companies in opt-out states to compete with opt-in states rates anyways, if they want those states to remain "opt-out" states.

[vaberella]

39. You made valid points and I think I would agree to this. The stimilus package is a perfect example.

Now we have all these Repub Texans screaming for aid, when they were the first to smash it down.

[CreekDog]

44. You know what they say about too good to be true

...because it is. :eyes:

[Kermitt Gribble]

50. I don't like it.

Not sure how you can be so confident about states not opting out. Florida is run by imbeciles - you can't possibly, with any confidence, predict what this state will do. What if they opt out? We just hope Crist's successor will opt back in, if not, wait another 4 years for the next election? So let everyone take the easy way out - spineless Dems appease the heartless repubs - everybody wins. This is about more than winning elections, millions will still be uninsured. Fuck giving blue dogs cover, fuck taking the chance that repub governors will cave to this. POS Dems need to stand firm on this or they deserve to lose 2010 and beyond.

I know Dean supports this - I respect his opinion on most everything, but he won't be one of the people who are left out in the cold.

[thelordofhell]

51. It took my backwards-ass state decades to have a MLK day

McCain STILL doesn't like the idea of a MLK day. This legislature wanted to cut education funds even though we were almost dead last in education funding. Yet they didn't opt out of the stimulous.

[saracat]

58. Thank you.And folks on this board don't believe us. This is my argument!

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

[Alexander]

67. Your argument is that AZ didn't opt out of the stimulus?

Yep. That's some argument all right.

:eyes:

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

Figures you'd repeatedly quote an anti-Semitic song.

[Sebastian Doyle]

53. Considering it was written by the DLC asshats Carper and Schumer

I'm wondering what the catch is myself. There's no way in FUCK those two have the slightest interest in doing what is right for the people, since they have deliberately done otherwise so many times.

[thatsrightimirish]

56. just wondering...

Who do the states opt out. Do the Governors decide, the legislature?

[Clio the Leo]

62. no one knows yet. NT

[Kingofalldems]

57. And they can't claim it is being forced upon them

Brilliant idea.

[Doctor_J]

59. However, by opting out, the states

will save their residents from being registered for the re-education camps, where they will read the works of Marx, be forced to pray to Obama, and eat nothing but organic raisins

[blueworld]

64. It eviscerates the public option altogether & is useless. Drs already don't accept Medicaid, for ex

This ridiculous so-called "compromise" eviscerates the purpose of the public option: cost containment through robust competition. If the red states can opt-out, they surely will. The folks most in need of affordable health care will still die waiting. There may NOT be enough insured people in the blue states to provide the necessary competition & the entire HCR could die slowly over years.

I also can't fathom why this is a "states rights" issue at all! Seems like a giant red herring to me. The public option is between taxpayers & their government on a national level. The states have nothing to do with it!

Here in my local area of VA my friend cannot find a pediatrician for her daughter who will accept Medicaid. She has to drive 30 miles to get the kid basic well-care. This is a federal program administered by the states & no doctor or hospital is required to accept it that I can see! They've opted out regardless!

So no public option yet a mandate to purchase private insurance, complete with fine, that will relegate pre-existing conditions to a "high-risk" pool while premiums & profits soar. This is change??? Seems like we're still chasing our heinies around the same old BUSH to me - thanks Dems.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

65. Your analysis is predicated on a fallacy

"If the red states can opt-out, they surely will."

There is absolutely no reason to believe that and ample reason to believe otherwise.

[blueworld]

68. What are your ample reasons? Mine is that I live in red state. n/t

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

70. It would be perceived as simple malice against the people of the state.

Even red states (I live in a pink one) have practical politics.

The reason pugs don't want the option on the federal level is precisely because people would like it.

Nobody opts out of Medicaid. Everyone takes the stimulus money. Nobody secedes. Everyone wants ear-marked projects.

Opting out would be 100% gesture on a highly abstract principle-argument that would create an automatic counter-constituency that would include a lot of republicans.

If something is a political loser even pugs tend to get the picture. Politics is the only thing they're half-way good at. Go on hate radio to talk about opting out, but never quite get around to doing it.

Nate Silver's post is pretty good:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/10/opt-me-out-of-public-option-purism.html

[Pisces]

69. Constituents will force red states to take PO plan, just like they are begging for stimulus money

after voting NO. This is a brilliant option. Too bad PO won't be immediate.

[lumberjack_jeff]

71. It's brilliant because it offers symbolic and meaningless cover to "moderates".

And progressives have more freedom to pass a bill in which the PO is as effective as possible.

Red states are free to reject it on the basis that it's too good for their constituents. I wish them luck with that.