Jane Hamsher: Reid’s Opt-Out: The Devil is In the Details

[seafan]

Ms. Hamsher is not letting up.


October 26, 2009 2:54 pm

In his presser, Harry Reid said very little about what kind of an “opt-out” he’ll put in the final bill.

The good news: Pressure on Reid from progressives when his poll numbers are flagging made him defy the White House. More importantly, he ratted them out to the press. Rahm thought he could continue to push for triggers in the background and satisfy the base by mouthing gibberish about “the President supports a public option” until it was too late. It didn’t work out so well.

The bad news: Having a state opt-out that will make corporatist Democrats happy is quite likely not to be “available nationwide from day one,” and thus does not meet the the definition of a “robust public option” by anyone’s terms.

Depending on how an opt-out was written, it could potentially disenfranchise large parts of the population:

State legislature and governor’s approval required for opt-out The following ten state legislatures are fully controlled by Republicans and the state also has a Republican governor: AZ, FL, GA, ID, NE, ND, SC, SD, TX, UT. If the opt out required approval by both the legislature and governor roughly 71 million people (23% of the population) live in state where they would be denied the public option.

State legislature’s approval required for opt-out Fourteen states legislatures (AZ, FL, GA, ID, NE, ND, SC, SD, TX, UT, WY, OK, MO, KS) are fully controlled by Republicans. If the opt out only required an act of the legislature, roughly 84 million people (28% of the population) would be in a state without the choice of a public option.

Governor’s decree required for opt-out There are 22 states with Republicans governors (AL, AK, AZ, CA, CT, FL, GA, HI, ID, IN, LA, MN, MS, NE, NV, ND, RI, SC, SD, TX, UT, VT). One hundred and forty-one million people (46% of the population) live in states where the Republican governor could opt the state out by decree.

Either state legislature or governor can opt-out the state A combined total of 154 million people (51% of the population) live in states where Republicans control the governor’s mansion or the state legislature.

Providing health care for the nation is a moral issue, it’s not about getting a “political win.” And Reid has many procedural moves at his disposal to make the opt-out easy to accomplish, or even drag triggers back into the picture.

Anyone remember the time Reid had the Seargent-at-Arms set up cots for the all-nighter on forcing troop withdrawal in Iraq? It was very theatrical, but ultimately accomplished nothing.

Short answer: no chicken counting going on here yet.

Same here, Ms. Hamsher.


Florida concerns the hell out of me, as the wingnuts are in complete control here.


The Theater on the Hill continues.

[merh]

1. Some one needs to ask Senator Reid if he would have voted

for a trigger or an opt out provision in the 1964 Civil Rights laws.

He is such a jerk.

[ProSense]

2. "not to be 'available nationwide from day one'" This is such disingenuous information.

The plan is available nationally from day one and states will have to opt out.

Josh Marshall got it right

[merh]

3. But what happens if states opt out?

What happens to the people in the states that need affordable insurance?

[ProSense]

5. I frankly don't see any states pulling health care from its citizens. How many

states opt out of Medicaid? I agree with Congressman Weiner:

This afternoon, Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY)--a very visible public option advocate--said he could back an opt-out clause. "I would accept and would be open to the idea, after the program's up and running a couple years, if a state wants to opt out, if they want to leave 25, 30, 50 thousand of their citizens without that choice," Weiner said. "I dont believe it's gonna happen. So i would accept that kind of an opt-out thing." Rockefeller likewise believes that, once consumers purchase in to the public option, they'll raise hell if their state governments try to take it away from them.

link

Sherrod Brown

“I applaud Majority Leader Reid for pursuing a strong, public option that is similar to the one we crafted in the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. While the bill would allow a state to opt-out of offering the public option to its residents, I am confident that the states will choose to put middle class families ahead of the insurance industry.”

[merh]

6. So, the idea is, the opt out option

could take place in a couple of years and by then the citizens will have their insurance?

[rudy23]

7. My state tried to opt out of stimulus money for unemployment during a deep recession.

Don't all GOP policies defy logic? Why would healthcare be any different? In a more idealistic world, sure--but the GOP has 4 years to hammer on government run healthcare before they opt out with little political consequence.

[merh]

8. So, did Rachel Maddow

explain it right in the video posted in this thread?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x394613

If so, the plan sucks and is destined to fail.

And those of us in the red states are screwed.

If a state opts out, what happens to those in the plan before the opt out?

[tularetom]

4. It will make it very clear who is standing between the people and

Affordable health care. And it won't reflect well on the repubs In the long run.