Want to understand how vulnerable state by state PO is? Look at the numbers:

[ddeclue]

43 states have balanced budget requirements, 13 states are Republican controlled and another 8 have at least one house controlled by Republicans.

These facts plus a lot of high pressure lobbying by the insurance industry means that only a few New England states will end up having anything like a REAL public option if we do it state by state and we will be giving the insurance companies 50 chances to screw us under the national news RADAR by "reforming" insurance in ways that will make the insurance companies happy like a kid at Christmas if we do this state by state.


STATES W GOP LEGISLATURES:

FL, GA, SC, TX, OK, KS, MO, SD, ND, AZ, UT, WY, ID = 13 - i.e. if you live here forget about a public option

STATES W MIXED LEGISLATURES:

TN, KY, IN, OH, MI, PA, VA, MT = 8 - You've still got a good chance to be screwed if the lobbyists can twist enough state level Democratic electeds arms or work to replace them in upcoming elections.

http://www.ncsl.org/?TabId=12651#t1

States with Balanced Budget Requirements: 43 - If you live in one of the "balanced budget" states you can also forget about a public option for budgetary reasons - it won't get passed because it will either require state funding or they will be afraid that it might in the future.

Governor Must Submit Balanced Budget
Legislature Must Pass Balanced Budget
Cannot Carry Over Deficit

Alabama
C, S
S
X

Alaska
S
S
X

Arizona
C, S
C, S
--

Arkansas
S
S
X

California
C
C
X

Colorado
C
C
X

Connecticut
S
C, S
--

Delaware
C, S
C, S
X

Florida
C, S
C, S
X

Georgia
C
C
X

Hawaii
C, S
--
X

Idaho
--
C
X

Illinois
C, S
C
--

Indiana
--
--
X

Iowa
C, S
S
X

Kansas
S
C, S
X

Kentucky
C, S
C, S
X

Louisiana
C, S
C, S
X

Maine
C, S
C
X

Maryland
C
C
--

Massachusetts
C, S
C, S
--

Michigan
C, S
C
--

Minnesota
S
S
X

Mississippi
S
S
X

Missouri
C
--
X

Montana
S
C
X

Nebraska
C
S
X

Nevada
S
C
X

New Hampshire
S
--
X

New Jersey
C
C
--

New Mexico
C
C
X

New York
C
--
--

North Carolina
C, S
S
X

North Dakota
C
C
X

Ohio
C
C
X

Oklahoma
S
C
X

Oregon
C
C
X

Pennsylvania
C, S
--
--

Rhode Island
C
C
X

South Carolina
C
C
X

South Dakota
C
C
X

Tennessee
C
C
X

Texas
--
C, S
--

Utah
C, S
C, S
X

Vermont
--
--
--

Virginia
--
--
X

Washington
S
--
X

Wisconsin
C
C
--

Wyoming
--
--
X

Puerto Rico
C
C
X

Total
44
40
38

[MNDemNY]

1. Well, people can always just move, right?

You know , vote with your feet.









.:sarcasm: (in case you need this)

[ddeclue]

3. Nice theory. In The REAL World people don't move for health care - they have to keep the jobs they

already have.

:eyes:

[MNDemNY]

5. You missed something. Please re-read my post.

[ddeclue]

7. Sorry.. I missed your sarcasm thingy it was off the page the first time.

[MNDemNY]

11. no prob.

:hi:

[Ian David]

26. Who still has a job? n/t

[BlooInBloo]

2. (shrug) Red state people have always YEARNED for "states' rights"....

We're just respecting y'all.

[ddeclue]

4. Nice theory also except there are more registered Democrats in FL than Republicans.

the makeup of any given state's legislature is NOT indicative of the people who live in that state.

Weird but true.

[BlooInBloo]

8. Not sure why it matters to you, since you all are sooooo sure that the reform package...

will be shit anyway, right?

Sounds like being in red states would be the place to be.

You all say over and over and over how it's "worse than nothing", after all. Now's your great opportunity to show us. Step up to the plate - don't wuss out. Otherwise we might just think you all are full of shit.


EDIT: Reverse-psychology is so funny with the dim. :rofl: I can only imagine the lolz parents get when they do it.

[ddeclue]

12. It WILL be shit and it DOES matter to me what passes.

What's your problem anyways? Don't like people pointing out the truth?

I'm quite consistent in fighting for a REAL FEDERAL PUBLIC OPTION with NO STRINGS ATTACHED - OR SINGLE PAYER which I actually prefer.

[hfojvt]

6. that's pretty amazing

only 21 out of 50 states with even mixed legislatures. And Nebraska's legislature is not Republican. Wow.

[ddeclue]

9. NE is unicameral and I didn't know how to read it since the map was "black"

instead of red, blue or purple.

I'm assuming it's probably also Republican though.

[hfojvt]

20. those numbers don't look right to me

I count 19 states where the lower house is controlled by Republicans, including Delaware and Wisconsin, which are not on your list for mixed. In Pennsylvania and Oregon, it is practically a dead heat with Democrats controlling the lower house in Oregon by 31-29 and in Pennsylvania by 102-101.

In Nebraska the unicameral legislature is officially non-partisan.

[ddeclue]

23. Source was wiki:

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

[hfojvt]

27. hmmm. Google took me to SAUS (statistical abstract of the US)

and they do not seem to agree in all cases. They show New York State Senate as D by 32-30 and I see it as R by 33-29. They show the Delaware house as D 24-16 with one vacant, and I find it as R by 22-19. Perhaps they are not updated as of 2009.

[hfojvt]

24. also 21 states where the upper house is controlled by Republicans

including New York and Michigan. They are tied in both Oklahoma and Tennessee, although TN has one independent in the upper house and I don't know which way he/she leans.

[Kulshan]

31. NE is overwhelmingly Republican

We have a unicameral system; senators are all listed as bi-partisan.
However, as anywhere else, they aren't really. I count 32 Republicans
2 Independents, and 15 Democrats. You should be aware that that even if
a senator calls him/herself a Democrat, he/she may well still be and vote
Republican. Sad.;(

[hfojvt]

33. yes, I sort of figured that even though they are technically non-partisan

and welcome to DU :hi:

[Kulshan]

35. Thanx hfojvt

for the welcome!

[quiller4]

10. As it is being proposed those state requirements would have zero impact.

There is no state budget impact to opting into public option. There could be an increase in Medicaid costs to the states for opting out. Thus, the balanced budget requirement would if anything, be an incentive for opting in. (At least that is what the WA state public policy council ius saying)

[ddeclue]

13. Mark my words, budgetary constraints will be why many states end up opting out.

[Warren Stupidity]

16. yeah but it sure inflated the point the OP was trying to make. nt.

[ddeclue]

19. No it's called "unfunded mandates" and state gov'ts fear them

if there is any admin cost associated with this plan or if they fear they will need to pay part of it in the future they will opt out. Republicans will fearmonger with this point and it will work.

Just look at the Recovery Act funds that got stopped at the state level because of this kind of fear mongering by Republicans.

[lumberjack_jeff]

14. What relevance does a state balanced budget law have?

States are not being asked for anything except to administer the exchange. From the perspective of the state, the public option is simply another insurance company.

[ddeclue]

15. There will be a COST associated with that "administration"

and states will use that as a reason to say NO or will use the fear of a future "unfunded mandate"on them as a reason to say no.

[Warren Stupidity]

18. admit it: you just made that part up.

Yes there will be the red states that will opt out. No, all those other states that have balanced budget requirements will not opt out. You lose an argument when you put a huge load of bullshit into it, even if your argument might have otherwise had merit.

[ddeclue]

21. Admit it: You are a lightweight who doesn't know how state gov't actually works.

There will inevitably be an unfunded mandate aspect of this that will be used to stop it in state after state with deficit restrictions.

I'm sorry you don't really know what you're talking about.

[Warren Stupidity]

30. I know how my state government works and we will not opt out.

But if you need a shovel to dig yourself in deeper, just let me know.

[lumberjack_jeff]

34. They can't refuse to administer the exchange, regardless of which plans are in it.

Seriously, the public option has nothing at all to do with state budgets. They can't cut it from their budget because it ain't there.

Even the exchange itself is run by the federal government, with the state insurance commissioner only enforcing the state insurance laws that aren't superceded.

[kctim]

17. So, progressives believe 80+ percent of Americans want the PO

but you don't think they believe in it enough to vote for the progressive candidate who would give it to them?

[ddeclue]

22. You seem to think that voters vote on issues.

I hate to break it to you but they vote for candidates they like, not issues.

They vote for candidates who have good campaign organizations and lots of money.

Issues might be reason number 5 why they vote for a candidate.

[kctim]

29. But they like candidates

because of where they stand on their own one or two pet issues.

Sorry, but I don't buy it. Sure, SOME people vote blind like that, but there is no way I am going to believe that 63+ million people voted for President Obama simply because they liked him and NOT because of where he stood on issues.

[nadinbrzezinski]

32. Yes they do, ask the abortion voters, the NRA voters

and the family values voters.

They vote on issues REGULARLY.

[Echo In Light]

25. Voters abide the framework of The Game that the corporate masters have established

So when a candidate who represents a threat to the established systems is deemed "unelectable" by those same vested interests, most unfortunately buckle like a belt, cause they're long accustomed to doing so while simultaneously assuring themselves otherwise.

[hvn_nbr_2]

28. All those Cs, Ss, Xs, and --s

Okay, from the link I figured out that "C" means a state constitutional requirement, "S" means a state statutory requirement, and the three lines of letters for each state correspond to the three lines in the OP that begin "Governor must submit balanced budget." Although the link uses the "X" and "--" codes, I didn't find any obvious clue as to what they mean, although I'm guessing that they may be from among these possibilities: no such state requirement, that website doesn't know if there's a state requirement, some other or different requirement, state legislature gets the guillotine if they fail, other requirement or non-requirement that doesn't occur to me, other, or none of the above. I think we have a failure to communicate.