How many states would Opt-Out of a federal PO?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

In reading about the (vague so far) state opt-out compromise idea it seems that much of ones view of the idea is determined by a sense of how many states would opt out.

In general, the more you think would opt out the worse the idea. Even folks who like the idea vary a little... Paul Krugman's first blush is that some small red states might opt out. Nate Silver offers good reasons for thinking it would be unusual for a state to opt out, but allows the possibility. I don't think any state would opt out because state politics is more $$$ oriented and opt-out is proactive... you have to cast a vote to deny people.

Based on what little we know, what is your estimate of how many state legislatures would actually act to opt-out?

[Drunken Irishman]

1. I think at most, 1-4.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

2. Yeah, my 'zero' estimate should allow for freak-show accidents

But I think there would be a subsequent backlash in even the reddest state.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

3. Likeliest? Alaska, Wyoming, maybe Utah or Idaho (IMO)

The large numbers of low/moderate income people (and terrible per capita insured rates) would stymie deep south states, IMO.

[SIMPLYB1980]

4. Texas.nt

[SemiCharmedQuark]

16. A few years ago, I would also have thought Texas. But parts of Texas are turning blue right now

Especially the southernmost areas. My family lives very near the border (San Benito and Harlingen) and every time I go and visit them, I'm surprised how much Cameron County is changing.

[PSzymeczek]

6. Arizona

The R's want another referendum on the ballot to make it illegal for a Federal single-payer system to take effect in this state.

[frazzled]

5. About as many as opted out of the stimulus money.

That was none, in the end, wasn't it? They yapped a lot, then took it.

I may be wrong that some may have refused some aspect but took the rest.

[vaberella]

7. They all took it in the end. Texas is currently crying for it. But I agree with your guess. nt

[vaberella]

8. 5-9 for me. Really Red States to show some resilience.

But they'd all opt-in eventually.

Grammar problem, hence edit.

[Hepburn]

9. Color it red for the Governor...

...and it most likely IMO would opt out. I would find Calif to be one of the exceptions, tho, because if Ahhhh-nold did that he would become The Terminated!

[timeforpeace]

10. Mostly southern states.

[Jackpine Radical]

11. One. Jindaliana.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

17. This Jindal?

[Jackpine Radical]

27. Oops-Dupe

[Jackpine Radical]

28. This one...

http://rodonline.typepad.com/rodonline/2009/02/jindal-rejects-nearly-100-million-in-recovery-funds-that-would-benefit-25000-unemployed-louisisana-r.html

Jindal Rejects Nearly $100 Million in Recovery Funds that Would Benefit 25,000 Unemployed Louisianans

Bobby Jindal, Louisiana's anti-gay, social conservative governor and a rising star in the Republican Party, says "F---k You!" to the thousands of unemployed in his state. Over the weekend, the governor announced he would reject nearly $100 million in unemployment insurance funding from the federal government—funding that would have benefited at least 25,000 unemployed Louisiana residents.

The federal aid was part of the Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the economic stimulus bill signed by President Barack Obama the week before last. Jindal rationalized his decision by claiming "expanding unemployment benefits would result in tax increases for businesses." The bizarre decision was "explained" in a virtual press release.

The Governor said the state will not use a portion of the stimulus package that requires the state to change its law to expand unemployment insurance (UI) coverage to qualify for up to $32.8 million of the federal stimulus funding because it ultimately would result in a tax increase on Louisiana businesses.

On Meet the Press yesterday morning, Jindal blamed Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the President, claiming the spending bill will not "work" for the "benefit" of the American people. Clearly the money targeting his state would have created "benefits" for at least 25,000 unemployed people, but, what are a few facts to right-wingers.

[damntexdem]

12. I'm guessing about 12.

But not many would stay opted out very long.

[Nancy Waterman]

13. All the same ones who didn't want the stimulus money

And then came crawling back with their hands out when the citizens of those states had a fit.

[nevergiveup]

14. South Carolina for a few hours and Texas for a few weeks.

Minnesota will opt out until Pawlenty finishes his speech.

[me b zola]

15. Maybe 1-4

But if the PO is strong, the program will work and the political pressure on those opt-out states will have them begging for the PO. If the PO is weak and ineffectual, then we're all screwed.

[BlooInBloo]

18. Not a single one.

[Cha]

19. Oklahoma for sure,

right?

[SpartanDem]

20. Zero

they all took the stimulus money and they'll take the public option

[andym]

21. How many states opted out of Medicaid-- a more progressive program?

0

[iceman66]

22. Unless it is fully-funded by federal dollars,

I suspect most of them would.

The health insurance lobby would be much more effective on a state-by-state level as well.

[Third Doctor]

23. The states in the deep south

such as Alabama. If that happens I'm getting the hell out of the south.

[unc70]

24. A lot should if PO preempts State mandates on coverage and consumer rights

Most the the so-called public options will not be subject to existing state laws requiring coverage beyond the Federally mandated levels and with less consumer protection than these states currently require. Remember what happened when credit card reform made things much worse for consumers by barring states from regulation and oversight.

The insurance companies lobbied hard to get Federal approval that would allow them to sell health insurance in multiple states without having to be licensed in each state and subject to state laws. They claim that this would reduce the cost of health insurance, but my guess is that this would be another disaster like the CCs.

I believe that single payer is what we should have and the only system that survive the ever-increasing rate of change to all aspects of society. (Much more later.) I have seen a Public Option as a partial way to restrain certain excesses by the insurance industry, since we lack leaders willing and able to stop them anytime soon.

As various proposals for how to provide a public option are revealed, most of them include barely detectable flaws which likely limit their effectiveness and cause significant damage elsewhere in places and ways few expected. After some effort looking for design mods to shrink or eliminate the flaws, I have concluded that a public option of any form will never be able to respond fast enough.

Those who believe that markets can determine value (monetary, of course) through the interplay of competing products, providers, consumers, and such. They seem unaware of some basic concepts in the sciences and engineering. First, strange things start happening at the extremes: near absolute zero, under great pressure, near the speed of light, and of course everything sub-atomic. Most of our human-scale world operates far from these extremes, leaving us unprepared when some system is suddenly operating near one or more of its extremes -- likely result with very high speed computers and networks and programs making decisions so fast that the speed of light is forcing competitors to co-locate their computers with the electronic market and each other, thus avoid milisecs of disadvantage, but also eliminating any further termporal advantage for anyone.

They also seem unaware that when efficient markets have eliminated all but the most efficient suppliers and lowest cost suppliers, they have also eliminated almost all profit and have become extremely unstable -- any drop in demand, such as in the past year, make it impossible for the suppliers to meet their fixed costs and low demand prevents price increases. Low profits in previous periods have limited their cash reserves, so they all have little opportunity to respond in any way. This is a dangerous way to build sustainable systems.

There might be a way that Medicare for all cut be defined to contain the problems elsewhere.

[pampango]

25. There was a Canadian poster here the other day who said that only 2 provinces initially

opted in to their national single payer system, but that all the other followed fairly soon afterwards. Now all provinces administer their public health insurance system.

[annabanana]

26. It would be VERY hard to sustain, politcally. . so, zero. . . . n/t