Wouldn't it be unconstitutional to deny coverage in one state while allowing

[Winterblues]

it in all the rest? How can state politicians deny Federal Health Care Public Option if it is available to other Americans.. Republicans in those states may be OK with it but others are being denied Health Care the Federal Government provides for Americans..Sort of different standards of equality that Bush* V Gore was based upon.

[valerief]

1. I think it's unfair that each state gets only two senators when one state

may have five times the number of citizens than another. And yet, that corrupt-to-the-bone senator from the small state gets to make decisions about my state with more citizens.

[Journeyman]

3. And that small state senator can be bought by corporate interests for a pittance . . .

of what it would take to buy influence over your large state senator. Yet the small state senator has as much if not more impact on your life, depending on seniority and committee selection.

[damntexdem]

8. So, the Constitution must be unconstitutional.

Not only that, but this is the one provision that cannot be changed by amendment.

[BlooInBloo]

2. The enormity of this reverse-psychology win is astounding...

I hope when the dust settles in a few months, we'll get the backstory on just who dreamed this on up.

:rofl:

[kctim]

4. Only if you are making them pay for it

but then denying it to them.

[forward assist]

5. HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF

STATES RIGHTS!!!!

[Hassin Bin Sober]

6. Yes. It's usually shouted by backward-assed bigots, morans and freepers.

[Winterblues]

9. Doesn't apply to Florida though

:shrug:

[zanne]

16. You seem to be lost, so here are some directions.

Take a sharp right and keep going until you find a brainless, cold hearted website full of rightwing assholes.

[damntexdem]

7. Pass it and let those who opt out worry about that.

Wouldn't it be ironic if the SCOTUS ruled that all states had to accept the PO?

[customerserviceguy]

10. I'm having trouble thinking of an example

where states have the right to opt-out of any other Federal laws, provisions, or programs, without a significant penalty (such as withholding tax monies collected from the residents of that state). Maybe someone here has such an example?

[Thothmes]

12. believe States can op out of NCLB

if the have a program which substantially achieves the same goals.

[madfloridian]

15. I don't think so yet.

http://aeroeducation.org/2009/04/07/opting-out-of-nclb-two-reports-from-a-growing-movement/

"It seems that we practically have a national consensus that No Child Left Behind has been a failure. Yet people still seem to be propping it up. Many of us are concerned that the new commissioner of education will not scrap it, although Linda Darling Hammond, President Obama’s education advisor at the time, told me that he would end it within a year of being elected when I met with her in Washington during the election season. Several people in diverse parts of the country are taking things into their own hands, encouraging state-wide movements to opt out of NCLB where that is an option. The feeling is that if this can become a national movement, we, the people can put an end to NCLB by making it clearly unable to function for lack of participation.

We also had another important group contact us recently with a plan to further organize such a movement through a workshop they will offer at the AERO conference in June. By the way, don’t miss this year’s conference, our 20th anniversary event!"

Under Arne, it will be strengthened.

[BlooInBloo]

13. Social security, I think.

[customerserviceguy]

17. That's true for employees of the state

but they cannot simply say, "The people of the sovereign state of (fill in the blank) will not be participating in the Federal Social Security System."

[anonymous171]

11. It's called Democracy. nt

[zanne]

14. The "Opting Out" option would be a disaster.

Huge insurance companies would move to states that opt out, leaving many thousands of people unemployed. They'd play with states and and threaten moving any time a health reform bill came up, or a state that opted out started thinking of opting "in".

[WonderGrunion]

18. Shhhhhhhh! It would absolutely be an equal protection violation.

It's just put in there to get it out of the senate. Then the Supreme Court upholds the 14th amendment and everyone has public option. Don't leak this to the Freepers.

[Ms. Toad]

19. The government does not "provide" health hare

under the public option. Individuals (or employers) may purchase an insurance plan administered by the government (the public option).

Allowing states to opt out of the public option merely deprives the residents of one choice (out of many) in the insurance exchange. Granted, that choice is supposed to provide competition to the private insurers because it is expected to be cheaper, but it is still only one of the many plans (all of which are required to play by the same rules) that may be PURCHASED by consumers or someone on behalf of consumers - not "provided" by the government.

(Subsidies will be available to assist low income individuals to purchase the plan of their choice - which could be any of the insurance plans, not just the public option.)