I OPPOSE the State-by-State Opt-Out Compromise on HCR

[berni_mccoy]

It took me some time to consider this. I definitely think the idea had merit. It would put immense political pressure on politicians who tried to opt-out. It is political pressure against the Republicans at a very local level. Once people saw what they were missing out on, there would be a rebellion in opt-out states and Republicans would quite literally be up shit-creek without a paddle. I believe it would be a massive political strike by the Democrats if they passed a bill with an opt-out compromise.

But health care reform should *not* be about politics (even though politics is deeply involved). The vast majority of the public want HCR and a large majority believe a Strong Public Option that provides competition on a nationwide level is the only way to do that.

Having a opt-out compromise is still going to provide nationwide competition, as an overwhelming majority of the public will be opted-in by their states. I'm assuming of course that large population states like California, New York, and many of the blue states of the north are going to opt-in. This is a reasonable assumption, but if it does not hold, then this could backfire. But a potential backfire is not why I am opposed to this compromise. Let's move forward with the assumption that states with a vast majority of the population will still opt-in that an HCR bill is passed with bipartisan support and a strong public option.

So, when a PO kicks in and health care costs start dropping, the states who opted out are going to have a lot of angry people. And they will have a right to be angry. But worse, and this is why I oppose it, there will be plenty of people in these states who supported HCR with a strong PO who are going to go without. Should *any* people in these opt-out states have to go without, even those who were opposed to a PO? I believe they should not go without. This would be morally wrong to me because people in these states who cannot afford healthcare are not likely going to be able to afford to relocate. And so, now, not only would they have a much higher risk of mortality because they are poor, but also because of where they live. I find that just as wrong as our current situation. Nobody deserves to die because they are unable to afford health care.

[RKP5637]

1. Agree 100%! Many would needlessly die with a State-by-State Opt-Out n/t

[damntexdem]

8. Many more will die if we don't get health care reform, and a public option.

Of course politics is involved!

The beauty of this tactic is that it would put so much pressure on state politicians: first to not opt out; but if they do opt out, to opt in or else.

[BlooInBloo]

2. Suckers. It's just a reverse-psychology trick...

What do YOU think will happen when the less-than-bright get wind of the fact that blue state people might get something cool that they won't get?

:rofl:

Playing idiots like a harp, is my bet.

[DireStrike]

3. It is definitely right to ARGUE the issue this way

And obviously if we can get a strong PO, we should take it.

But if we cannot, it will benefit everyone greatly in the long run to put forth a bill like this, tarring the republicans with the failure to get a universal PO, coming out strongly for the right of people not to die for lack of healthcare.

I don't know what is really possible in congress, but we should position ourselves as opposed to this measure that the republicans are forcing us to accept through their stubbornness. It should be easy, being the morally correct position.

[berni_mccoy]

5. If it is the ONLY way to get a strong PO passed, then yes, we should take it. But it isn't.

We have more than 50 votes, Reid can arm-twist and whip any Dem who goes against breaking a filibuster and there is still a chance to use Reconciliation. I would like to see all of these tried *before* we move to a compromise like this.

[Sebastian Doyle]

12. You're actually expecting Harry Reid to do his job?

Considering it would be the first time he ever did so, should we really put all our proverbial eggs in that basket?

[csziggy]

4. All it will do is perpetuate the debate in the red states

Until a national public option is approved. We need to get this thing done and over, at least the broad strokes of what will be done. Whatever will be passed will not be the ideal plan, but hopefully it will be improved over the years until we get what we need.

If there is continued arguing in the most conservative states, that will just deny care to the people that need it most. Remember, there has been proof posted here on DU (that I do not have the links to) showing that the most red states need the most help on health care and social programs. So if the state governments are allowed to make the decisions on health care, the populations that are the most needy will stay the most needy in the country. And that will contribute to the further polarization - we know that the right wing media will spin their lack of coverage as being the Democrats' fault and not the fault of the local right wing governments.

[lumberjack_jeff]

6. We need to get something passed.

The opt out compromise is a tiny hummingbird-sized bone to throw to the red state crowd.

In fact, I'm not sure it has any practical implications whatsoever. The state insurance commissioners retain the authority to select which insurers are or are not allowed to solicit business in their state. To them, the public option is simply another insurance company.

In other words, I think they already have the right to opt out in any of the current bills.

[ddeclue]

11. No it is a total sellout - if we pass it there will be maybe 4 states in New England that get PO

and we shouldn't just pass anything so we can say we passed something.

A bad bill is a bad bill.

The Baucus bill is atrocious.

[scheming daemons]

13. I think you're wrong... I think upwards of 30 states will opt in

[ddeclue]

14. As Ben Franklin once said: "We must all hang together or most assuredly we will hang separately."

Some people think that the state by state public option plan is a good idea - I happen to know better. Let me educate you, Governor Dean et.al. about state politics outside of New England:

I happen to personally know several state reps in FL and a few FL Congressmen and also a national lobbyist so I happen to know how the game is played up close from the front row seats.

My lobbyist friend goes around defending the Life Insurance Settlement Association against the lobbyists from the life insurance industry in a never ending battle that travels from state capital to state capital - a battle you never read or hear about in the news because it's "state" and not "national" news. The LI companies pour in national level resources into getting their way state by state though.

That is exactly what will happen with HEALTH insurance too. We'll forget about it because it's "state" level but the insurance companies sure as hell won't and they'll spend huge amounts to make sure. They'll lobby and donate to campaigns and work to get Republicans elected and Democrats unelected so that they can get the vote they want.

Florida's state gov't has a Republican governor: Charlie Crist, 26 Republican Senators vs. 14 Democrats, and 78 Republican Representatives vs 42 Democrats. They will make sure we never ever see a public option and will probably do OTHER bad things to health insurance to help the insurance companies and hurt the little guy while they are at it.

Florida is not alone either. Practically every southern state and many midwestern and western states have GOP controlled legislatures. We're gonna get screwed state by state on the public option if it is allowed to be up to individual states and this gives the insurance companies 50 under the radar chances to stick it to us. It's called "divide and conquer".

State government is usually "the best that money can buy" - lobbyist money and these guys are notoriously afraid of pissing off the Chamber of Commerce and big corporations because they will find themselves outfundraised for re-election by an order of magnitude if they oppose the wrong business.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/orl-florida-offshore-drilling-cannon-100509,0,7232184.story

Here's Dean Cannon (R-35FL) who decided this session that hey it'd be a good idea to start drilling offshore of Florida's beaches 3 to 10 miles off shore IN SIGHT of the touristas. I can't imagine why... I wonder if it was all the lobbyist money he got from the oil companies. He's hardly unusual in the Florida legislature or any Southern state legislature for that matter.

That's the future of your state by state public option right there if you don't fight it right NOW and keep Congress from allowing it we're ALL screwed. As

As Benjamin Franklin famously once said regarding the Declaration of Independence: "We must all hang together or most assuredly we will hang separately."


Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[scheming daemons]

15. Hmm.... do I agree with Dr. Dean... or with dde-needs-a-clue.....

...tough choice.

:eyes:

[berni_mccoy]

16. come on. ddeclue has been reasonable in his response. There is no need for name calling.

[scheming daemons]

19. You're right.... in *THIS* thread, ddeclue has been reasonable.... I apologize....

And the "angry moon" thread of ddeclue's is awesome!

[OHdem10]

7. Health care has to be all or nothing. Start the opt out and the Bill

will never go anywhere. Having large pools of people is the success.

Do we want HCR or not want HCR ??

[damntexdem]

9. Many more will die if we don't get health care reform, and a public option.

Of course politics is involved!

The beauty of this tactic is that it would put so much pressure on state politicians: first to not opt out; but if they do opt out, to opt in or else.

[ddeclue]

10. Actually most states will opt OUT not in.

because they aren't allowed to run budget deficits, because they are controlled by Republicans and/or because the insurance lobbyists will go around state by state to buy or blackmail them off while the national news isn't looking.

This is a total sellout and it should be opposed period end of sentence.

[graywarrior]

17. NH's Live Free of Die is a good example of how a state would handle a compromise.

[Are_grits_groceries]

18. This just dumps the whole mess into the states.

It is a copout.

They can all self righteously say they passed a health care reform bill. Then the states get to tear themselves apart over it internally.

There are those who are saying if a state doesn't opt in, they should just not elect the same people.

So we will have to stop in our tracks trying to elect a Dem governor. We have a good candidate, and Sanford has made it a lot easier. Instead of being able to focus on that, we will have to squabble over the health care reform mess.

Sanford will be get lost in that hooha.