Public Option Compromise Floated: Let States Opt Out

FireDogLake:

First there was the "level paying field" public option. Than there was Snowe's trigger. Snowe's trigger was followed by Conrad's co-ops. Only in the last few days we've seen the emergence of Carper's weird monstrous hybrid trigger/co-ops/small state-based public option idea.

Now we learn from the Politico that SEIU Chief Andy Stern is working with senators Schumer and Wyden on a new "compromise." It sounds like the idea is a national public option with an "opt out" provision for individual states.

Read the whole story: FireDogLake

Comments

[inorbit]

11:13 AM on 10/04/2009

I think this is a great idea.

Think of the battles that would occur over this in individual states that tried to opt out of the public option.

It may very well cause certain politicians to be soundly defeated by their constituents.

I say - let's put it in the bill - and watch the ensuing fireworks with glee!

[paulbikes]

07:24 AM on 10/04/2009

Lets see how much we can mangle this bill and how furious we can make our constituents. States can opt out?

Our entire congress needs to be fired.

[armadillo]

06:52 AM on 10/04/2009

That ould probably cause me to staple my check book shut and shred it before I donated another dime to the Democratic party.

[KarateKid]

11:09 PM on 10/03/2009

It seems to me that if this went into effect, there would not be additional costs for those in states that did not opt out. Most of the people in those states would take the public option, so how would the uninsured in the red states add to the cost? Wouldn't the ones with the private insurance they so cherish be the ones to pay more?

[bpafree]

09:16 PM on 10/03/2009

So, then the top 10 percent of earners in America who now receive nearly 50 percent of all the income earned would be the only inhabitants of the RED opt out states because only they could afford health care (with the exception of some token middle income workers). This does not sound good to me. Crystal ball says Civil War II.

[kinnycut]

08:42 PM on 10/03/2009

It is bad idea, a real bad idea because you will have uninsured people in those states still burdening the system. If everyone doesn't have some kind of health plan, the unpaid bills of those still without health care coverage will still allow costs to climb. The whole point of a public option is to get all or at least almost all the people covered because without that you do not have any cost containment. One of the reason why costs for Medicare keep escalating is because many without coverage put off treatment for certain expensive things, like hip, or knee replacements, until they receive Medicare.

[Uchenna Oguekwe]

06:43 PM on 10/03/2009

This is exactly what I have been posting on here for some time. In order to have a public option, either let states where the majority want a public option be apart of the system and any other state that wants to join can vote to be included or you can do the opposite and have states opt-out. I hope they start pushing this because I think this would be the best compromise, even though I know the Repubs will be against this too.

[IWantTofu]

03:37 PM on 10/03/2009

This is sort of like the stimulus money with states opting out. Or better yet, have the option for no one, and let the individual states opt in.

[KarateKid]

11:06 PM on 10/03/2009

How would that be any different from the other way?

[FreedomBeforeSecurity]

03:27 PM on 10/03/2009

I would LOVE to see the Opt-out system.

Let the red states pull out.
When they see everyone else is paying much less, they'll beg to come back.

[inorbit]

11:16 AM on 10/04/2009

In the end, they wouldn't opt out. It would like the situation in which some of these Repug yahoos said they weren't going to take the stimulus money - in the end they did and then took credit for the projects the money funded!

I say if that's what it takes to get the bill passed - let's put it in - and then watch the fun afterwards as those same yahoos go through their dance of trying to opt out on something most of their constituents are gonna want.

[dutt]

09:49 AM on 10/03/2009

If states can opt out we had better start building containment walls around them. The influx of fellow Americans from red states and desperate for health care would overwhelm the system.

[Mustang Sally]

11:20 AM on 10/03/2009

Agreed.

They're against it UNTIL they need it...

[IWantTofu]

03:30 PM on 10/03/2009

Maybe we can have a clause which states if you State opts out, you can't move to another state that allows it and get it. ;-)

[Tommygun264]

12:34 AM on 10/03/2009

Here's a plan, scrape the red states - the states who suck more out of the federal government than they pay in federal taxes, who have the highest poverty rates and the highest percentage of people on welfare and food stamps per captia - off completely and let them sink under their own failed pub policies. Stop propping up their failed economies and let the people see who's really to blame for keeping them poor and dependent on government handouts. Then those masses might really rise up and bring down the corrupt pubs who have kept them down.

[Kamenskiy]

01:03 AM on 10/03/2009

These are precisely the states that would opt out, so this plan is essentially what you're proposing. I have to admit I liked the plan at first, although after considering I cannot really support it because of the cost in lives of people who just happen to live in reactionary states.

[Tommygun264]

01:21 AM on 10/03/2009

Alas, I have to agree with you. As much as it would please me to see the veil of ignorance lifted from the eyes of those who continue to vote against their own self interest because they've been convinced that abortions and boys kissing boys is the root cause of all their economic woes, I would find the cost in human lives and suffering too much to bear. Sometimes I wish I could be as callous as the right wing, but only in fleeting moments of anger whicht are quickly overwhelmed by basic human empathy.

[alexdog]

12:00 PM on 10/03/2009

You might want to check the stats before you make such a blanket statement; as 32 states receive more back from the federal goverment than they contribute through taxes.

[Kache]

06:06 PM on 10/03/2009

Overwhelmingly they are RED states.

[Tommygun264]

06:38 PM on 10/03/2009

And? They are still overwhelming red states with the most regressive policies on assistance to the poor. When you keep people poor and uneducated, then exploit racial, ethnic and religious tensions, convincing each group that the others are to blame for their poverty, they are more easily manipulated to work (and vote) against their own self interest.

[MsJoanne]

11:45 PM on 10/02/2009

Any state opting out will lose its business base. Have at it red states (as in permanently in the red when your jobs disappear).

[jsgaetano]

11:26 PM on 10/02/2009

Let states VOTE to opt out.

It will be funny to watch Goopers get yet another huge and overwhelming loss at the polls.

[H321]

09:34 PM on 10/02/2009

Fine. Do it.

Because these red-states will have to op-in sooner or later once their citizens realize how much they are missing out. And Republicans will start shilling for the public option in order to win future elections.

Trust.

[CAHertzfe]

11:11 PM on 10/02/2009

Those elected officials will be dropping like flies each election cycle. People can only be told they can't have something for so long, especially when everyone else gets it.

[brklynivn]

08:07 PM on 10/02/2009

That's fine, let the states that want to opt out. However, this means that these red state freeloaders can't come into states with a public option and expect treatment.

[AnotherAngle]

01:42 PM on 10/03/2009

Well, that's a very humane statement.

Turn them away? Deny them treatment? Let them die? Where's your love?

[IWantTofu]

03:31 PM on 10/03/2009

How about moving that border fence that South of Texas to North of Texas?

[paulbikes]

07:27 AM on 10/04/2009

Last i checked, states don't just come in red and blue.