Schumer says Senators willing to accept opt-out

[ProSense]

SEN. SCHUMER: ...and I and others have been talking to liberal Democrats, moderate Democrats, conservative Democrats. The liberals, they like it stronger, but they're willing to live with level playing field, opt-out. The more moderate Democrats, there are some who actually like it. As long as it's a level playing field, they're comfortable with it. There are others who say that, "I'm not sure I like it, but I won't hold up passage of the bill." I think we're very close to getting the 60 votes we need to move forward, and my guess is that the public option level playing field with the state opt-out will be in the bill. But Leader Reid will make that decision after he talks to everybody several times.

link

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

1. that would be excellent

[Hippo_Tron]

2. Opt-out is the best of the bad options

I imagine that after the hysteria about "socialized medicine" passes and people realize that their relatives and friends in public option states are paying less for health care, they will pretty quickly push their red state governments to opt back in. Yes in the meantime it sucks for people in red states who will not get a public option. But helping some people is better than helping nobody.

[saracat]

3. Didn't they use that argument to continue slavery?

And remember those slaves could just run away to the North!

[ProSense]

5. Idiotic. n/t

[saracat]

8. Do you deny that many have told red state Dems that they should just "move"?

and if you knew history the argument was about not being to exist part slave and part free. The opt out suggests we can exist part ensured and not ensured. Rights for some but not for all.The analogy is apt.

[Nikki Stone1]

38. I think you're too educated for this board, saracat.

:)

[Garam_Masala]

61. Yes I agree! This board is more fun with posters who

are brash, with no holds barred opinions :spank:

Saracat is too thoughtful? :shrug:

[yourguide]

57. So you want to deny the rest of *us* health care because

you and your state voted for a bunch of morons?

[Nikki Stone1]

37. What's idiotic is not admitting your own culpability

And how your threads misled many people.

[Aramchek]

6. wow, what a completely ridiculous analogy

[Nikki Stone1]

35. Why is it ridiculous? The founders did what was expedient

Not what was right.

[phleshdef]

21. What an overdramatic insult to those who actually suffered through slavery.

God damn, I mean yea, not getting access to affordable healthcare sucks badly, but its nothing compared to that.

[John Q. Citizen]

24. 40,000 Americans die a year from not getting access to health care. Many more suffer terrible

debilitating symptoms as a result of not having access to health care.

To me, suffering is suffering.

[saracat]

27. Thank you. Suffering is suffering.

[phleshdef]

52. Comparing the plight of slaves to this is fucking DESPICABLE!

And I metaphorically spit in the face of anyone that chooses to do so.

[Nikki Stone1]

62. And your reasoning is....

..?

[phleshdef]

71. Pick up a friggin history book and read what slaves actually went through.

Theres my reasoning. Not having access to healthcare SUCKS but its NOTHING compared to the life of a slave with no rights whatsoever, who would be subjected to beatings and selective breeding and forced labor.

[John Q. Citizen]

65. Your blindness to people's suffering is sad. I feel sorry for you.

[phleshdef]

72. Your shitting all over plight of the ancestors of African Americans is sad and I don't feel sorry...

...for you.

[saracat]

29. So dying, suffering unbelievable pain, living in poverty and having no control over your life,

and watching your family and children die just "sucks badly" but has no comparison? Really? Suffering is suffering to quote another poster. I guess somne haven't seen or experienced suffering to make such a statement.

[Nikki Stone1]

36. phleshdef, no access to affordable healthcare means death for many. See Alan Grayson:

http://namesofthedead.com/

[phleshdef]

70. I'm sure Alan Grayson would find the comparison despicable as well.

I'm sorry, but I'm not budging on this. Anyone that perverts the plight of slaves in order to make an argument for healthcare needs their heads examined.

[Clio the Leo]

40. Which is why red state govs are proposing....

.... that anyone who is caught attempting to move to a state in which a public option is being offered will be SHOT?

you're killing me sara .... you're killing me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bc7t_ET6SNQ

[saracat]

42. Got a link to those govs? My state leg is drafting a bill against federally funded health care tho...

and some think we wouldn't opt out!

[Clio the Leo]

43. Again I ask you....

..... to visit Recovery.gov and count the number of states who have decided not to accept stimulus money.

There you will find your answer.

[saracat]

44. Not really.There is a reason that Grijalva and the CPC don't support the opt out.

And there still is no reason for anyone to support a crappy bill.

[Clio the Leo]

45. And the reason why Rocky and Weiner support it is....

.... to keep us confused? To give us something to argue about?

What'cha think?

[saracat]

46. They are more "politcal animals". I presume they get something out of this deal.

Weiner is in NY and I am sure Schumer has horsetraded something.Rockerfeller got something too I am sure.I happen to think this is a done deal anyway but it won't stop me from registering my disgust with it all.they will all fold eventually and give us this crap when we could have had a real reform and good health care for all. But the chance has likely been blown. because all that matter is reelection and the midterms.

[Clio the Leo]

48. ha ha......

yes, they're all operatives for some kind of secret AHIP army

.... as I was saying...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aPJYrFLStg

[saracat]

49. Nah. Just politicians.

:rofl: :rofl:

[dionysus]

73. reynolds called, they want the tin foil back.

[Aramchek]

4. the kicker is that they cannot opt out immediately,

thus they will likely never do so.

[Hippo_Tron]

7. Even better then

[saracat]

9. I wouldn't bet the farm on either your assumption about opt outs not being effective immediately OR

that no states would opt out. Raul Grijalja opposes opt out for a reason.

[Aramchek]

11. the only opt out that has been talked about required a time period before the opt out was possible

Otherwise, it would not be Opt Out. You have to be in something before you can opt out of it.

No State will enact it because by the time that is possible, it would be the equivalent of stripping the Insurance from thousands of voters.

[saracat]

13. You know what they say about assumptions.

[Aramchek]

15. clever... still doesn't change the definition of a opt out

you have to be in before you can opt out.

once States are in the PO, the citizenry will not allow an Opt Out to occur.

[Bluenorthwest]

18. You are not correct about the definition of 'opt out'

It simply means decline to participate, not that one is ceasing participation. Look it up. Words mean things. And by the way, an 'option' is a thing which can be chosen from among alternatives, not a thing which can only be used when there is no other choice.
Sick of the word games, language is not improvised.

[saracat]

20. Thank you.

[Aramchek]

26. how can you get out of something you are not in?

you're the one playing games. you know that the opt out as proposed would not be available immediately.

There will be a Public Option.
No state will opt out, though they will likely have the right to do so.

[saracat]

32. You "opt" NOT to be included. Example , everyone is going to

lunch and you "opt" not to go.

[Aramchek]

53. but that is not what is being proposed

the States don't have the option to not be included in the beginning

[saracat]

55. actually, the reality is, we don't know what is being proposed.

But some of us know what we don't want to be proposed.

[Aramchek]

63. you may not know because you choose to ignore what has been described

don't worry, Harry will give you the details later today.
then you won't be able to keep denying what an Opt Out truly means.

[saracat]

69. I meant the Final bill. Many of us, including the Unions and the Congressional Progressive Caucus .

do not support the OPT Out and want it removed from the Final Bill.

[Nikki Stone1]

39. Gold star to Bluenorthwest!

:)

[Clio the Leo]

41. And Sen. Rockefeller and Rep Weiner are open to it for a reason...

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/rockefeller-warms-to-public-option-opt-out.php?ref=fpa

[saracat]

50. Because they are politicians!

[Clio the Leo]

51. And what were these guys?

[saracat]

54. Not bipartisan politicians? They got what they "demanded" from their own party

and somehow, they passed sweeping legislation in record time.

[joeycola]

64. since any reform will not take place for 4 years they have time.

[angee_is_mad]

47. Thank God I live in NC

with a democratic governor.

[Barack_America]

10. Let's have the names of the holdouts.

The 1 or 2 "Democrats" who would stand with Republicans against America.

[saracat]

12. Raul Grijalva doesn't support the OPT Out.Nor does the Congressional Progressive Caucus

"Grijalva’s office statement is “The CPC totally disagrees with the opt-out position in any form.”
They also will not support a Bill without a solid Public Option. They hardly support the gop, but they do support the people over bipartisanship.

[Barack_America]

14. If he supports the GOP filibuster, he supports the GOP.

Though I suspect Grijalva, who I happen to respect very much, probably falls in the "don't like it, but won't filibuster it" camp.

[John Q. Citizen]

22. There is no filibuster in the House of Representitives. It's a creature of the Senate.

The House Progressives have already agreed to vote against any bill without a "public option."

If they vote against a bill, and the Repos do too, then the bill won't pass. the House Progressive Caucus is the largest caucus in congress.


But it has nothing to do with a filibuster. Since Grijalva is a member of the House.

[Barack_America]

28. Lol. Yeah.

Not sure why I promoted him to the Senate!

Thanks for the correction.

[saracat]

31. He should be promoted to the WH. He could be our first Latino Prez!

[ProSense]

16. Got a link? Pelosi seems to think that it has support

Pelosi and Weiner

[saracat]

19. Call His office. There is nothing about Grijalva and the CPC in these links.

[ProSense]

23. So you have no link. n/t

[saracat]

25. It is the statement his office is giving Here is the number:

ph [phone]

[Nikki Stone1]

34. Hey, ProSense, I have links for you--of your own past threads

You still haven't addressed them

[yourguide]

58. So, both schumer & weiner disagree with the opt-out as well

but they wont do the GOPs bidding in trying to stop HCR.

Again Sara, if something like what's on the table had passed in the 90s we'd be putting the finishing touches on single payer now.


And I ask again, why hasnt your state opted out of medicare if it's so against govt health care?

[Life Long Dem]

17. Bet they'd love an opt out for Social Security and Medicare as well.

Why stop at health care?

[andym]

30. Well there is an optout for Medicaid

which actually makes sense, because the states have to contribute $$$ to it.

[jefferson_dem]

33. If we end up with a robust(ish) public option with opt-out...

I will be THRILLED to no end.

[Unsane]

56. my problem is states that need it most, like Texas, will "opt out" bc the state is run by RW lunatic

s

[rucky]

59. Sorry, Texas DU-ers.

[gkhouston]

60. They may be willing to accept it. Real people aren't. Try harder, assholes. n/t

[bvar22]

66. "Opt Out" weakens The Public Option for ALL states.

Opt Out is just another way to further weaken the "thin sliver" Public Option.
In its current incarnation, The "Public Option" cannot draw on Federal Funds, but MUST pay its own way from collected premiums. ANY reduction in enrollment reduces the viability of an already weak plan that must "compete on a level field field" with the For Profits.

Those of you thinking that "Opt Out" is a good thing really need to do your homework.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=6809439

[bvar22]

67. If DLC Schumer supports it, we KNOW one thing:

It will be BAD for Americans who Work for a Living.

[Grown2Hate]

68. Good. DARE the "red states" to opt out. We'll see how much their constituents

like THAT idea once they realize what their neighbors in the "blue states" are enjoying. NOT AT ALL saying that I want my brothers and sisters in the "red states" to have to needlessly suffer. I just think that this is something that will wake them up and get them on board, and OUST the Repukes that are keeping them from having the public option available to them. Just a thought. :)