Nate Silver: 6 Reasons why Opt-Out is a good thing

[Ruby the Liberal]

He makes a great case.

1) If the public option is indeed popular -- and the preponderance of public polling suggests that it is -- we should expect the solid majority of states to elect to retain it. Perhaps some Republican governors or legislatures would seek to override the popular will in their states -- but they would do so at their own peril (and at Democrats' gain).

2) Behavioral economics further suggests that default preferences are extremely powerful. Making the public option the default would probably lead to much greater adaptation than requiring states to "opt in".

3) If the public option indeed reduces the costs of insurance -- and most of the evidence suggests that it will -- than the states that opt out of it will have a pretty compelling reason to opt back in. Say that Kansas opts out of the public option and Missouri keeps it. If a Kansan realizes that his friend across the border is buying the same quality health insurance for $300 less per month, he's going to vote restore the public plan in a referendum or demand that his legislator does the same in Topeka.

Full list: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/10/opt-me-out-of-public-option-purism.html

[Tansy_Gold]

1. Our Senate is paying absolutely no attention to the public will

What makes you or Nate Silver think individual state governors or legislatures will do any different?

Opt out is a cop out.

If individuals don't have the option, it's not "public."




Fuck that noise.




Tansy Gold

[anonymous171]

5. Because those senators ACTUALLY LIVE IN THE STATES THEY REPRESENT

[Tansy_Gold]

12. And what's your point?

They don't have to worry about insurance. Ask Jon Kyl.

Oh, they might not get re-elected? AND WHAT IF THEY ARE? The people who don't vote for 'em continue to get screwed until the rest wise up?

The point is, THEY DON'T CARE WHAT WE THINK. If they did, universal health care would already be the law of the land.


TG

[Ruby the Liberal]

13. No question. The beltway groupthink in full force.

[Ruby the Liberal]

8. To get it out of the Finance committee so reconciliation is still an option

If they don't pass a bill, reconciliation goes bye-bye.

Let them get this POS Baucus bill out so that it can be merged with HELP.

[grytpype]

What is wrong with you people?

Are you going to cry about it?

[PSPS]

2. Opt-out is a deal killer

Only with the largest risk pool possible will there be any savings. Even if only a few states "opt out," it will doom the program. Of course, this is what the republicans and the insurance crooks are counting on. One way or another, they're dedicated to maintaining the status quo.

[MNDemNY]

4. yup.

:thumbsup:

[stray cat]

6. What is better that is likely to get passed?

[BlooInBloo]

11. Just plain false. As people who know any math (like both Silver and Krugman, for example) say.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

14. Don't be fooled by the electoral college. The little states are really little.

If Wyoming and Alaska opted out nobody would even notice the reduction in the national risk pool.

You start with CA, NY, IL, NJ, MA, the rest of New England... you're already closing in on half the pool.

I

[Barack_America]

20. Not true. Opting in at the individual level is optional.

If a red state is so against the public option that its leaders are politically safe to opt-out, chances are that not many people in the state were planning on opting in in the first place.

If Utah and Wyoming decide to opt out, the public option probably isn't losing many participants.

[bvar22]

26. Absolutely TRUE.

This is just ANOTHER attempt by DLC Democrats to kill the Public Option.
"Opt Out" WEAKENS an already pathetically weak Public Option.

Take this to the bank:
If DLC Stooge Schumer is FOR it, it won't be good for Americans who work for a living.

[PSPS]

3. Opt-out is a deal killer

Only with the largest risk pool possible will there be any savings. Even if only a few states "opt out," it will doom the program. Of course, this is what the republicans and the insurance crooks are counting on. One way or another, they're dedicated to maintaining the status quo.

[Johonny]

7. Not to disagree

but isn't this what we do with education. What happens is every once in a while a liberal state elects a republican. Who then opts his state into a more republican like education plan. The result hasn't been that states are trending towards policies used by the states with the best education programs, but that states are trending towards states with the worst education programs. It appears conservative states have an amazing ability to never reform and then be used as examples on how to miss up well running states. Frankly we're one country and we deserve one good health care system.

[Ruby the Liberal]

9. Canada got their plan by province adoption

besides, this is NOT the final bill. We just need to get this blasted thing out of committee so that reconciliation is still an option. We lose that option if Finance doesn't have something passed as it has to be tied to the budget.

[Johonny]

10. I agree

[laughingliberal]

21. Thank you for the point about Canada

I believe all of us here would prefer to get a single payer system or, at least, a very strong public option. We look at Canada, UK, France and long for their much more progressive systems. And we forget they did not get there in a day, either.

[Selatius]

15. I would support an opt-out clause if it means getting something rather than nothing at all.

I wrote this in another thread, but it bears repeating here. I live in Mississippi. How many of you honestly thinks the corrupt state legislature would opt-out if they had the chance? Especially given the amount of health insurance money is flowing around:

Such a proposal would necessarily fuck me in the short-term. We all know Mississippi would opt out at first opportunity. I think, though, in the long-term, health care costs in the states with a robust public option would be lower than in areas that rejected such a notion. They would become progressively less competitive in terms of operating costs compared to more liberal states. They would begin losing opportunities to lure new businesses into the area when the alternative in more liberal areas leaves them with lower health care costs.

Economic pressures would inevitably force these backward states, including mine, to reconsider their positions. The alternative is that health care costs will eventually cripple state economies in conservative dominated states, and they will start hemorrhaging jobs and businesses and the talented entrepreneurs who open those businesses. That's my view of it.

[Ruby the Liberal]

16. Thank you for that perspective. Question though -

if it was funded by premiums, deficit neutral, and had the benefit of a national bargaining position -- how in the name of Sam could states find the cojones to opt out? What would the talking points be?

I really don't believe that it will happen as this is just a move to get it out of committee, but would really appreciate your thoughts on the what-if.

[Tansy_Gold]

17. It may be "just" a move to get it out of committee, but

once an opt-out provision is part of the bill, it's there. The pukes can lobby to keep it in, KNOWING it will never pass like that.

It is a deal killer.

Worse, however, is that it's a people killer.





Tansy Gold

[SpartanDem]

19. It hasn't killed Medicaid

states can opt out if they wish, but none of them do.

[Selatius]

18. I figure it would be nothing but willful ignorance coupled with sheer political pandering.

Lots of Repub senators and representatives are up for re-election in the up-coming mid-terms. They could "bring home the bacon" as it were by claiming they were against the federal government interfering in the markets knowing full well that incredibly lax regulation caused the whole problem in the first place. Given the poor level of education many voters have as far as political issues go, especially in areas that are constantly blasted by right wing radio and FOX News, it might secure their seats for another term or two.

But I swear, if they go and pull this stupidity, they may find themselves admitting they fucked up in the end when their state economies are bleeding to death figuratively and literally. A lot of people will suffer and needlessly die because of willful stupidity, but the calculus is pretty clear. The entire nation should not be forced to bleed simply because of a few bastions of corporate conservatism refuse to listen. I know I am essentially condemning any chance of health care reform for myself by saying this, given that I live in such a state like Mississippi, but I remain firm in the belief that in the end, even the corrupt bureaucrats who run Mississippi will recognize the problem when the business dollars start leaving the state for other states where health care costs are actually being contained.

[laughingliberal]

22. Your condemnation is not necessarily assured

One thing I think we should lobby heavily for in this opt-out plan is that the method of opting out is by referendum. There may be more support from the electorate for the public option than you think. Nationally, even Republicans are polling 48% in favor of a public option.

[Selatius]

25. I'm not even sure that's constitutional, but there are workarounds.

The federal constitution has no provision for requiring referenda for any program or bill.

Likely, enough signatures could be garnered to invoke a referendum on the issue according to many state constitutions. In short, it would have to be a state-by-state campaign. In my case, Mississippi does have a somewhat awkward but workable referendum mechanism in place. It was most famously used in recent years to ban both same sex marriages and civil unions as a constitutional amendment to the state constitution. Although I'm sure the state legislature here would rather opt out immediately if given the choice, I believe you are correct there in that it won't be done without somebody attempting to challenge that act of the legislature by calling a referendum on that soon after.

[laughingliberal]

23. self-deleted

dupe

[dalaigh lllama]

24. That's a very good idea.

[rudy23]

27. He's assuming people are rational, like a stats person tends to do

Like I ask on another thread--if the governments and voters of red states acted rationally, why would there even be red states in the first place?