More public option confirmation: Politico reports White House to push for Opt-out plan

[Politics_Guy25]

Yes!!!

http://www.politico.com

Top White House and Senate officials are leaning towards including a public option - with a provision for states to opt out of it - in the Senate health care bill, as the Senate leadership heads to the Oval Office Thursday for a meeting with the president.


Two Democratic senators said Thursday that they have been told negotiators are zeroing in on creating a national government health plan, but allowing states to drop out of it or choose a different competitor to private insurance.


"I keep hearing there is a lot of leaning toward some sort of national public option, unfortunately, from my standpoint," said Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), a key swing vote on health reform. "I still believe a state-based approach is the way in which to go. So I'm not being shy about making that point."


Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said he has been told the same regarding the direction of the talks, but was assured the government plan would not be tied to Medicare rates.


The comments underscore what has appeared to be a significant movement in recent weeks towards the public option. If Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and the White House included a public option in the Senate bill, it would signal remarkable shift from where Democrats and Republicans thought the debate was headed after the tumultuous August recess.


BTW: How do you get 60 votes? Simple? Send President Obama and Vice President Biden to literally camp out on the hill for as long as it takes ready to bash heads and wheel and deal.

[Autumn]

1. Opt-out huh, I just wouldn't

think Obama would really push this.

[Thrill]

2. How many Governors would have the balls to opt out?

.

[Autumn]

4. I think some of them will,

they are going to whine that their state can't afford it and they will have to raise taxes, start their bullshit propaganda backed by insurance companies. I might be wrong but I will just wait and see.

[Thrill]

5. They'll likely pay for it

election time. My guess is only solid red states would have the guts to

[Autumn]

6. Very true, and a lot of people

will make sure they do. It isn't only Democrats who want health care reform. But depending on what is in the final bill, Democrats need to understand that cuts both ways. IMO

[saracat]

10. Nope. My state, AZ, would opt out and they aren't "solid red" except locally.

[gravity]

14. How do you know your state will opt out?

Even red states would want to stay in if a public option provides significant savings.

Republicans always complain about welfare programs, medicare, social security etc until the are eligible for the benefits. They are the biggest hypocrites when it comes to this.

[saracat]

22. Because not only do my dem state legislators tell me so, that

is what the teabaggers will want.They tried to refuse the stimulus. They still haven't accepted all of it. And our local state party is more involved with federal elections than local.

[Clio the Leo]

17. Call me and I'll tell you.....

.... how TN got Gov. Bredesen to change his tune on the stimulus money in 24 hours flat. ;)

First we had this....
http://www.nashvillescene.com/2009-03-05/news/phil-bredesen-considers-turning-his-back-on-tennessee-s-unemployed/

and then we had this....
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2009/mar/06/bredesen-tn-will-accept-100-stimulus/

I got an actual letter of apology after I wrote him and reminded him that DEMOCRATS (which he claims to be) dont leave the poor out in the cold.

We didn't let him turn down the stimulus money, we wont let him opt out. I suspect other states will go the same route.

[Clio the Leo]

16. Kinda like how they did with the stimulus money?

Go to recovery.gov and count the number of states who ended up turning down stimulus money after they swore they wouldn't. Here's a tip, you wont neen many fingers to count with.

[Autumn]

48. True on the stimulus, so if the opt out will get

republicans to vote for health care, when they are dead set against health care reform, what is in it for them?

[FrenchieCat]

25. They don't have to pay for it. If anything, it will free up the budgets from some of the cost of

Medicaid.

[Captain Hilts]

9. SC, LA, MS, TX. nt

[flpoljunkie]

3. Medicare +5% is the way to go Sen. Conrad--if you are concerned about deficits, and I know you are.

Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said he has been told the same regarding the direction of the talks, but was assured the government plan would not be tied to Medicare rates.

[PolNewf]

7. Let them opt out

The beginning of coverage

It was not until 1946 that the first Canadian province introduced near universal health coverage. Saskatchewan had long suffered a shortage of doctors, leading to the creation of municipal doctor programs in the early twentieth century in which a town would subsidize a doctor to practice there. Soon after, groups of communities joined to open union hospitals under a similar model. There had thus been a long history of government involvement in Saskatchewan health care, and a significant section of it was already controlled and paid for by the government. In 1946, Tommy Douglas' Co-operative Commonwealth Federation government in Saskatchewan passed the Saskatchewan Hospitalization Act, which guaranteed free hospital care for much of the population. Douglas had hoped to provide universal health care, but the province did not have the money.

In 1950, Alberta created a program similar to Saskatchewan's. Alberta, however, created Medical Services (Alberta) Incorporated (MS(A)I) in 1948 to provide prepaid health services. This scheme eventually provided medical coverage to over 90% of the population.<21>

In 1957, the federal government passed the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act to fund 50% of the cost of such programs for any provincial government that adopted them. The HIDS Act outlined five conditions: public administration, comprehensiveness, universality, portability, and accessibility. These remain the pillars of the Canada Health Act.

By 1961, all ten provinces had agreed to start HIDS Act programs. In Saskatchewan, the act meant that half of their current program would now be paid for by the federal government. Premier Woodrow Lloyd decided to use this freed money to extend the health coverage to also include physicians. Despite the sharp disagreement of the Saskatchewan College of Physicians and Surgeons, Lloyd introduced the law in 1962 after defeating the Saskatchewan Doctors' Strike in July.

Medical Care Act

The Saskatchewan program proved a success and the federal government of Lester B. Pearson, pressured by the New Democratic Party (NDP) who held the balance of power, introduced the Medical Care Act in 1966 that extended the HIDS Act cost-sharing to allow each province to establish a universal health care plan. It also set up the Medicare system. In 1984, the Canada Health Act was passed, which prohibited user fees and extra billing by doctors. In 1999, the prime minister and most premiers reaffirmed in the Social Union Framework Agreement that they are committed to health care that has "comprehensiveness, universality, portability, public administration and accessibility."<22>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada

1 province started the ball rolling and then 20 years from start to finish (with some nasty and down right ugly fighting) to truly universal care. Hopefully it won't take as long in the US but you have to take that first step before you will get anywhere.

Then again...

The Americans will always do the right thing . . . After they've exhausted all the alternatives.

[saracat]

11. So those of us in red stgates can just die? is that it? So just "anything" can get passed because

you can fix it latedr, nevrminf that it will be too late for some of us?

[FatDave]

13. So people should continue to die everywhere becasue your governor is a dumb-ass?

Are we supposed to make everybody settle for the worst-case scenario because the likely scenario conflicts with your sense of fairness?

[yourguide]

36. +1

[PolNewf]

15. Are you forced to live in a red state?

If you are going to die I suggest you consider moving.

What unrealistic plan would you like to see implemented? Straight to single-payer when the administration has to work overtime just to make a limited public option publicly acceptable?

You need to get real...and stop being such a drama queen.

[saracat]

24. With what money would you suggest I do that?We have already borrowed against our house to

to pay for insurance and both of us are unemployed. Are you offering to pay for a move and to get us jobs? We would be thrilled to go, at least I would. And forget about family , neither of us have any.

[Captain Hilts]

20. Yep. You got that right. nt

[phleshdef]

28. This all or nothing BS will get way more people killed than that.

Because it will result in no option for anyone at all.

Don't like it? Friggin move or elect better people to run your state. Sorry if thats cold, but I'm sick of the whining.

[fujiyama]

29. A lot of us in blue states are hurting

and are basically being held hostage by the idiots in those dark red states.

If the opt out is the only viable way to get the public option passed - then I'm all for it. It's far from perfect and I hope the people in those other states will eventually wake up, but this is a million times better than the horrible "trigger" mechanism discussed earlier.

We have to start somewhere and if we can display that near universal coverage can be achieved at a reasonable cost, without blood sucking private for profit insurers involved, other states will follow.

[Aramchek]

40. no, you'll just have to go to a Blue State for Healthcare until you elect some decent Leadership

[tranche]

47. Long sustained histrionics (over years) gives you wrinkles.

[dave29]

8. Very good news

.

[saracat]

12. No it is NOT. Not for those of us who will either die or be bankrupt despite

working all our lives for the democratic party but just happen to live in red or purple states.

[FatDave]

18. Do you know that old story about King Solomon and the two mothers?

Where the two mothers lived together, both had babies, one of which died, but both mothers claimed the living baby? King Solomon threatened to split the living baby in two so each woman could have half.

Your all-or-nothing stand reminds me of splitting a baby. You say if your state can't have the public option, no-one should get it.

Yes, people are dying and suffering and going broke. Right now that's happening everywhere, but we have a chance to fix it for 90% of the country. But you'd rather have that 90% continue with the status quo because you live in a state you fear will choose to opt out?

Please, be happy that most of the country will get government health insurance and work to fix things in your own state. Either that or move. People move all the time.

[Clio the Leo]

19. No one needs to worry about the baby....

.... just like the original one, the baby will be fine .... and his mama will have affordable health care. :)

(good metaphor though)

[Ed76638]

23. Lets put this back into perspective.

This isn't about King Solomon, splitting babies in half, or about being so goddamn happy about the rest of the country.

This is about getting a few more corporatist senators on board while at the same time playing political games in hope some red states would turn blue. I mean hopefully, because passive-aggressive bullshit by Dems has always reaped great results in the past.

Right?

[SpartanDem]

21. You're blowing this out of proportion

the possibility of your state or any state opting out is minimal

[saracat]

26. I would guess my legislators know better than you do. And BTW it likely won't be

just my state. But at least I know not to speak for states not my own.

[fujiyama]

30. Maybe your state needs to get rid of douchebags like McCain and Kyle

Is this truly all or nothing with you? We need to start somewhere. That's how Canada did it.
Eventually your state will wake up.

[saracat]

38. Geez. And I thought this nation was supposed to be about equality for ALL No wonder we can't pass

ERA or GLBT rights. Health care for the blue! And the pragmatic. We can't pass anything worthwhile because we have to be concerned with the midterms, and that is the real reason people don't count. We are attempting to secure a majority that isn't going to do anything for us at the cost of peoples lives.

[saracat]

50. Maybe it would if we could get back all the money our state party sent

to elect candidates ibn the blue states.

[yourguide]

37. Sorry Sara...

if your state chooses to opt out then the citizens of YOUR state need to push back.

It's offensive to me that you are screaming and howling about an opt out when without it NOTHING may get passed. If something had gotten passed when the Clinton's were trying to get health care reform done then we'd be putting the finishing touches on single payer now.

The bottom line is the public option has overwhelming public support and any politicians in any state voting to opt their states out will pay the price at the voting booth, period.

[saracat]

39. Not in this state and I suspect others. But unlike you,I don't speak for other states than the one

I know.

[yourguide]

41. It would be like voting to pull the plug on medicare...

even in the reddest of states they wouldnt dare vote to shut down medicare.

This is a bluff from your legislators and I can assure you, I'd bet my 401K on it, that even at the first sign of a trial balloon floating up in your or any state about opting out that the backlash would be incredible.

20% of the residents of AZ are uninsured, I can assure you most of them would like the option to have some health coverage.

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/oldengoldendecoy/2009/04/uninsured-the-numbers-by-state.php

The states most likely to try and opt out have the highest numbers of uninsured, that poses a problem come election time if any politician tries to take something away that it's residents want.

[saracat]

42. "Bluff". This is from our Democratic legislators, who are really "pragmatic" about it.

The "voters" in Arizona are not the same as the residents. Don't confuse the two. And the voters are more concerned with their "idependence" than anything else. There is a loud and vocal liberatarian factor. And you must have no idea thethings that the Az leg has taken away already that you might think folks would want but they don't. Contraception has been made difficult to get, Choice has all but been skuttled, particularly for poor women.Domestic partners have had benefits taken away from them. And the voters have returned these folks at election time.

[yourguide]

44. I think you're missing the big picture here

many of these same small minded voters that have voted against contraception and domestic partners are also the same folks lacking health care.

How would it go over in AZ if AZ legislators voted to discontinue medicare for the state tomorrow?

[saracat]

51. Many of those small minded voters are retired with money and don't care.

The ones who would care don't vote and many are ineligable to vote.

[yourguide]

53. Now you're just reaching...seriously LMAO.

The median household income in Arizona is below 50K a year, your state is ranked #29 in average income...

Are you suggesting that it's only the wealthy retired that are going to oppose free healthcare? Haaaaaaaaahahahahahaha....right.

[saracat]

55. No I am not.I am suggesting those that need it most don't and will not vote.

Those are also not the folks who elected the present legislature.

[yourguide]

57. How do you know?

Seriously?

I just gave you a poll in AZ showing more in favor of a public option than opposed, you're just making crap up now.

[saracat]

58. You just gave me a poll stipulating that the overwhelming majority

of Arizonans said they didn't "know anything about the public option". They approve HCR. Big deal.So does the GOP.

[leftynyc]

45. Let me get this straight

You're in favor of ALL of us losing out because the elected officials in red states are assholes? Sorry, if your state chooses to opt out, it's up to you to change your elected officials or change their minds. The rest of us shouldn't have to do without because of it.

[FrenchieCat]

27. If you stick with Politico as a "news source"....you will soon get dizzy....

:crazy:

[olegramps]

31. It is a brilliant strategy.

It essentially puts the decision in the hands of the citizens and exposes the Republicans as nothing more than boot lickers of the health care insurance rip offs. It confirms one of the Republicans' most cherished notions, States' Rights over the dictate of the Federal Government. All right people, you can now decide to continue supporting multi-million dollars compensation for heath care insurance executives or choose to obtain affordable coverage. This would be the first step in putting the health insurance racket out of business. The next target should be the auto insurance rip-offs that should be replaced with non-profit companies and hopefully destroy the Republican Party that has been transformed into cult run by religious charlatans.

[Mass]

32. I would avoid considering Politico as a valid source

Their reporting is all over the place, including this latest Mike Allen's reporting,ripe with anonymous sources, saying Obama was in favor of a trigger (really?) and that Pelosi was moving away from a strong public option.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/10/death_by_a_thousand_leaks.php?ref=fpblg

[gkhouston]

33. Politico?

:rofl: Almost as reliable as Chuck Todd.

[Oceansaway]

34. Politico = Human Waste....n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

35. I thought there were no red states, no blues states, that we are

and always will be the United States of America. Heard that on election night. Also heard for months that it was vital to have a universal mandate, that every American needed to be forced in or the plan would not work. Now they are saying that millions can refuse it and it will still work? So why then was the mandate so important? We can not do without one person not buying in, but we can deal with entire states and regions refusing the mandate? Strained logic. Amazing.

[saracat]

43. Isn't it though?The devil is in the details.But millions don't matter.

Politcal expediency is all that counts. This is the Obama WH version of the "Blue Skies Iniative".

[yourguide]

46. You live in Arizona

The states have individual rights by the way and again if you dont like the way YOUR elected officials run your state then you can either move or do something to change it.

I've already mapped out exactly why your state or any other red state will not opt out or if they do how quickly they'll take heat from their voters but again a mandatory public option will not pass which means no one gets health care period.

If you cant grasp the correlation between the states claiming they wont take the stimulus then taking it and the public option which is wildly more popular then I'm afraid you will never grasp why this isnt a problem.

And again, I'm still waiting to for you to tell me how you think the voters of AZ would react to the state opting out of medicare tomorrow...

[saracat]

49. As the GOP who are elected are campaigning on reducing "entitlements",

as they call Medicare, not as badly as you think.This is also a state that didn't take federal dollars for education because they refused to have federal regulations apply to them. The public option isn't wildly popular here. What I can't grasp is why we "need" this compromise at all. It seems if we had effective leadership as claimed, we don't need to compromise with the lives of citizens. It is really odd that the GOP was able to take us to an illergal war, pass all sorts of legilsation without compromising to the Dems and we have to compromise.

[yourguide]

52. Apparently I know more about your state than you do:

First off, if the Clintons had compromised back in the 90s we'd be putting the finishing touches on a single payer plan, as it is this compromise will still mean a lot of people will get access to affordable healthcare. If it's all or nothing and we get nothing then what...wait another 15 years to start from scratch?

Apparently, in your state the majority of the public doesnt know shit about the public option but the ones that do outnumber the ones that dont.


http://azcapitoltimes.com/blog/2009/09/30/cronkiteeight-poll-most-arizonans-happy-with-their-insurance-but-want-health-care-revamped/

Cronkite/Eight Poll: Most Arizonans happy with their insurance but want health care revamped

By Elizabeth Shell, Cronkite News Service

Published: September 30, 2009 at 7:52 am

Most Arizonans think the U.S. health care system needs revamping even though the majority are satisfied with the health insurance they have, according to a Cronkite/Eight Poll released Tuesday (Sept. 29).

Fifty percent of those surveyed said the health care system needs major changes and 31 percent said minor changes would do, while 12 percent said the system is fine as is.

Bruce Merrill, a retired Arizona State University professor who directs the poll, said the response mirrors what people are saying about health care reform across the country.

“Most people know the system is broken and needs changes,” he said.

State Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Phoenix, said the results show that people want Congress to act.

“The biggest problem is we don’t have enough people with health care,” said Sinema, who serves on a group of state lawmakers advising the Obama administration on the issue.

Seventy-eight percent of respondents said they are very satisfied or generally satisfied with their health insurance, while 15 percent were somewhat dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. Seven percent had no opinion.

The president has made overhauling health care his administration’s chief focus. However, the Senate Finance Committee on Tuesday rejected a key part of that plan: having the government offer health insurance.

Asked about that proposal, often referred to as a public option, 57 percent of poll respondents said they don’t have enough information to form an opinion. Twenty-five percent said they favor a public option, and 18 percent said they oppose it.

[saracat]

54. I know both Bruce and Kirsten very well. And no where in that article

does it show overwhelming support for a Public Option. Even the worst of the GOP nationally, think we need some kind of HCR, but they do not support Public Options. And the Arizonan's that don't know, aren't intersted and will not support it. they don't know because they don't need to know.They vote as their R's tell them. The ones that support the public option and know about it are the Democrats. And btw, point of info. Bruce is a Republican, but he is a fair pollster.

[yourguide]

56. It shows that there is more support than there is against.

Why is it that there are more in favor than opposed if your state is so opposed to it?

The polling shows 57% have no opinion, 25% in favor and 18% opposed. If you break it down and exclude those with no opinion either way then you have support for it 58% to 42% which is in line with national polling on the public option.

[saracat]

60. It does not. 79 % are happy with their healthcare. They will NOT

vote for a PO. You are not reading this correctly.Citing support of HCR is meaningless. the insurance comapnies also say they support HCR. Only 25% are in favor of the PO. Those others cannot be factored in as favoring it.

[yourguide]

61. OMG...you are NOT paying attention then...

The overwhelming majority of Americans (75%) also say they are happy with their insurance but it still doesnt change the fact that a majority of americans also favor a public option. This isnt that far off from the AZ numbers.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/122663/Private-Public-Health-Plan-Subscribers-Rate-Plans-Similarly.aspx?CSTS=alert

It's not an either/or situation, you can simultaneously like your insurance and support a public option. It's you who apparently doesnt understand how to read polls.

Again, 57% have no opinion, 25% in favor, 18% opposed - so again I ask if it's so unpopular why is there more support in favor than opposed?

My guess is the pollster didn't pull out the likely voters which would probably reduce the "no opinion" number considerably. When the "no opinion" number is pulled out then it's 58%/42% in favor of a public option (again similar to the national support of a public option). That remainder with an opinion is probably likely voters because most likely voters are engaged enough to have an opinion on the public option.

[saracat]

62. OMG. You don't get it. You remind me of those who thought the Indies in AZ

were more likely to be liberals. Some even combined them with the Dems as voter indications. Turns out most were conservative leaning. My next door neighboe is one of those. His wife a stauch Repub supported and voted for my husband but he decribes himself as to the "right of Limbaugh". We have many more of those. When dealing with AZ you CAN'T factor out that no opinion section.
As I had, they don't have an opinion because they don't need one. And this is even more true for likely GOP voters. Sad but true.

[yourguide]

63. I do get it, I didnt suggest indies were Dems in AZ and never did.

It still doesnt change the fact that many other red states have the same results in polling. And again, why are you citing the 79% are happy with their insurance number when supporting the public option and liking your insurance are not mutually exclusive?

Again, why hasnt AZ opted out of Medicare then? Why again after the summer of teabaggers is the percentage in favor still greater than the percentage opposed in Arizona?

And a "no opinion" in polling means just that, if they were doing what they were told wouldnt they be parroting the "health care bad" meme and wouldnt that number opposed be much higher? Wouldnt they already be parroting the opinion they were already told to have?

You cant have it both ways, you cant claim the only people that dont vote wouldnt vote for this anyway while claiming the people who have no opinion are going to vote a certain way.

I went back and looked at the poll, the poll was registered voters not likely voters which only goes to further my point.

[saracat]

64. Whatever. Believe as you wish.

[yourguide]

65. So essentially you're here to show your poutrage and nothing more...

if you had any valid points or answers to these questions you would have addressed them rather than responding "whatever" and your only way to back up your assertions being "because I said so".

As soon as you get over not getting the EXACT color pony that you want do let know *rolls eyes*.

[saracat]

66. I addressed every one of your issues.You just don't accept my answers.

If you like, I will forward this thread to Bruce Merrill and ask him his opinion. I said whatever because I have dealt with your issues.And yes if my "pony" is health care for all, I want the "exact color pony I want." Your choice of verbiage is very telling indeed.

[marlakay]

59. what can we believe?

i read yesterday obama was leaning towards triggers instead of opt out that he didn't like it.

I would rather have something sooner and opt out and then try to get all of then in.

Triggers mean nothing will start for many years...we need help now!