It seems unfair to punish consumers in deep "red" states, just because they're governed by far-right conservatives.

Once again, elections have consequences. In this case, the clear consequence for electing idiots would be the voters losing health care for doing so. They would be, quite literally, precisely what they voted for.

It would, on the other hand, provide clear motivation for them to *not* elect such idiots in the future.

Cynical? Absolutely. But it wouldn't surprise me if this figures into strategy at least a bit.

-Z

"It seems unfair to punish consumers in deep "red" states, just because they're governed by far-right conservatives."

Well then there's a simple solution: vote them out of office. It's the people of those red states who, by their vote, placed those individuals in office. You reap what you sew.

This may be one big huge bluff. Look at the stimulous money. How many of them threatened to refuse the cash then, in the end, lined up with their hands out.

I say let the rogues gallery of blood red states opt. The voters can live with the consequences of their vote and maybe rectify the situation on future election days.

"adding the opt-out option to the bill might be the best and only way to get something through the Senate."

BINGO !

This is about getting a bill to the House/Senate conference committee.

This is a good way to put blue dogs in a tight spot, Arkansas is for the public option but if the senator from there does not support it she will really get to hear from her constituents.Of course Texas will opt out but later in the game will quietly opt in.

I think you're right...that when push comes to shove very few states would opt out. And it seems to me that politicians who would let that happen (and deny an alternative insurance option to their constituents) would be pretty vulnerable in future elections.

Anyone who thinks putting this issue up to the state legislatures is a good idea has never spent any time around state legislatures.

Federalism & accountability to the voters: what's not to love?

As long as those states aren't stuck out I don't think it is a problem.

If this is a way to get a stronger public insurance option and it works well they will join soon enough. If it doesn't work they won't want to join.

The situation where it works well and they don't join will be short lived.

Another thing is who exactly does the opting out. That ought to be the state legislatures. It absolutely should not be their federal representatives.

As I sit down here in Texas, I would hate to lose the opportunity to participate in a public option. On the other hand, maybe this is just what we need to wake up our fellow Texans and get these sorry sonsabitches kicked out of office. Or maybe these sorry sonsabitches will change their minds if this were the case...interesting idea. Anyway, if all goes for naught, then perhaps we can opt in at a later date.

This enables those ultra-conservative political leaders to do what they love to do:

1 - Continue to lie pathologically.
2 -- Sneak in the back door and take federal largesse while trashing it, and keeping their constituents hateful and angry at Washington.
3 -- Take credit for taking care of the little people in their states and improving the economy.

They probably should be hung, but they'll be loved.

Once a reform bill passes, there will be much excitement, although the legislation will take several years to implement. I suspect states will wait to use the opt-out until they have a chance to see how the program works. At that point, it will become much more difficult politically to opt-out and go it alone.

I'm thinking...if there is a real, robust, open public option that individuals, families, and businesses can choose if they wish, the States which opt in will see higher wages, more stability and lower health insurance costs, and thus become a lot more attractive for business than States that opt out.

If any States DO opt out, they'll opt back in pretty quick when the exodus of workers and businesses begins.

I honestly do not see the need to compromise on this - we could just pass a real, robust Public Option via reconciliation if Senate Democrats had spines.

In the absence of spinal bone mass, though, this might be the most palatable compromise.

The best would be if NC and GA opted in. The voters across the boarder in SC would see they are being shafted by their R over lords in state government then vote in Ds at the state level so they get the public option as well.

"It seems unfair to punish consumers in deep "red" states, just because they're governed by far-right conservatives."

But it's fair to punish blue states for this same fact?

Yea, as a bit of realpolitik this seems quite a bit more clever than what Dems usually do (which is to do whatever it takes to stop Republicans from yelling at them).

The rich Republican leaders of Appalachian states voting against healthcare for their poorest and most downtrodden citizens while they continue to go to the doctor for nearly-free with their gold-plated insurance plans, funded by those same poor citizens? How will that look?

Not to mention, if I was a small business owner in Texas or West Virginia, I would very seriously consider moving up to New Jersey or Vermont, because I could do the same business without the costs of healthcare on my books. What could that mean for Michigan?

I see a conundrum for the R's if the opt-out becomes law. Let's see how many liberty-loving conservatives remain adamant for how long about no stinking socialism in health care when opt-out or opt-in becomes an issue at state level politics.

”They probably should be hung, but they'll be loved”.

Hanged! Hanged!
Pictures are hung, men are hanged

(Well, men can be hung, but that means something else entirely)

jeff452...how I love reading these comments because of responses like yours! LOL....

Rather than merely repeat what so many others have said (sucks to be a red state, but maybe that'll light the fire under their asses necessary to elect leaders who will work for their interest and not Corporamerica), let me ask these questions:
1: Would an opt-out be enough to placate Sen. Snowe to sign on? Howabout any of the other Republican senators we need for that maaaaaagical "bipartisan support?"

2: Would an opt-out be enough for Blue Dogs to allow an up-or-down vote on health care reform? Because the Dem party still has an "enemy within" problem - Democrats who pretend to want reform, while actively sabotaging it, usually because of all the money given them by insurance lobbyists. If the GOP threatens a filibuster, with whom will they side? Because after the events of the past few months, I fear they won't be good Democrats. In fact, I fear that, if forced to Poop or get off the pot, some of the bluer Blue Dogs will stop the charade, make it official, and throw their lot in with the GOP, get the little (R) next to their name on the Fox News chyrons, and become Republicans. If any of these New Republicans were to subsequently lose their office in their next respective election, a grateful insurance lobby will find them work somewhere, I'm sure.
3: And just for fun - If we don't get biparitsan support, OR if Blue Dogs support a filibuster, what will be their official excuses? Because a clear majority want a public option, and the opt-out allows states to, well, opt out. Will "the principle of the thing" make conservatives stop progress? Will they still hold on to the old lies about government takeover of health care and death panels. What will be their rationalization of depriving we the people with what a majority of us want and we ALL need?

jeff452, can only second whichwitch.

Of course, if a state chooses to opt in after previously choosing to opt out, there is a two year waiting period before any major procedure can be covered. Office visits are covered after 6 months, but not shots.

What is the point of this compromise? Either a public option is a good idea, or it is not a good idea. What difference does it make what state it is in? Also, name me one other federal program that states can ignore or not allow their citizens to participate in? What kind of precedent is this setting?

lol @ jefft452.

Hung is still a correct past particple of 'hang'

So states can opt out but individuals can't?

Once again, elections have consequences. In this case, the clear consequence for electing idiots would be the voters losing health care for doing so. They would be, quite literally, precisely what they voted for.
-Z?

OK, what about the millions here in Texas that didn't actually vote R ? So any blue person caught in an red state should suck it up ? Idiot.
-----------------------

I mentioned in the earlier post, "Who is going to opt out ?" FDR left prohibition to the states in order to get the votes knowing damn well no one was going to 'opt out' of ending prohibition.

This is far greater legislation the the recovery package, it directly effects anyone w/o insurance or with inadequate insurance, which is like half the population.

Plus, if republicans get their way with insurance crossing borders, would that hold true for the public option ? If so, only one state would need to stay in the program for all to be eligible.

I think this is a win/win and with support growing I am feeling confident that the reform package is going to make some real changes to our system.

I'm with Notorious. I'm sick of our country's progress being held up by ignorant wingnut godbags who care about the unborn, but not about anyone or anything else. But no worries, as soon as they see others getting something they're not, their hands will be out demanding their share. Then the neocon and theocon hacks - the same stripe of misogynous GOP'ers who voted against Franken's bill that rescinded gov't contractors right to rape at will - will finally get voted out of office and either rational Republicans or Democrats will replace them.

In the long run, forcing the no-nothings to face the consequences of their votes (hopefully for their kids only on a temporary basis) might help turn turn retrograde red states around on a range of matters and promote a saner Republican party leadership.

"..I can't help but wonder exactly how many states would go through with the opt-out...It's even easier to imagine some states opting out, and then opting back in when they see other states benefiting from the public-private competition."

Let's imagine that Steve Benen from Vermont is wrong. Would this be a chance that he'd be willing to take if he were a Texas Democrat who gave money, canvassed, made phones calls, and wrote letters to help Democrats win the White House and the Congress, in part, in order to achieve affordable, quality health care for all?

If this proposal passes, then Obama, Act Blue, and the Democratic Party can kiss my contributions and votes good-bye. The 50 state strategy is dead. It's a big fuck you from blue state Dems who are willing to gamble the lives or quality of lives of those living in red states so that they can get theirs.

Thanks for nothing.

Joe @ 4:32

So long its been good to know ya,
so long its been good to know ya

The search for a compromise at all only seems necessary if some Senate Democrats are willing to side with Republicans and deny health care reform a vote.

Bingo. After passing health insurance reform, the Democratic Party needs to go about instilling a little discipline in its congresscritters. Want to vote against it? Fine, but side with the GOP on a filibuster threat and there must be consequences.

The biggest problem, at first blush, is that there are plenty of [strike]conservative[/strike] Republican states out there.

Fixed for accuracy. Let's stop pretending that the Republican Party is actually conservative, and brand the Republicans as the mendacious, incompetenct and corrupt party of miserable failure that they are.

It seems unfair to punish consumers in deep "red" states, just because they're governed by far-right conservatives.

Have you been to Mississippi? Low-tax, low-service states are the Republican model. They make up for their failures by sucking tax dollars from the blue states.

But I can't help but wonder exactly how many states would go through with the opt-out.

Good point, and widespread participation by red states -- which, after all, already sho no hesitation to feed at the public trough funded by the blue states -- would further cast the public option as truly bipartisan and Republican resistance to same as the radical corporatism that it is.

forcing the no-nothings

That's "know-nothings." It's really a bad phrase to misspell.

Am I missing something, or would cash strapped states have the pay the entire cost of these mini-public options themselves?

In other words, how do we actually think these public options are going to be set up in states that are completely broke?

This is the right way to got. Canada's singlepayers system started at the local level first. They should of did this from the start. Getting a public option is a marathon not a sprint. There is still 3 years left

Joe@4:32 you do have an excellent point. I'm in the same boat as you and believe me, as you well understand it's ever so frustrating to give 100% to a cause and then suddenly be dumped because of our location. But I see opportunity in this idea also that might turn the tide against Republican dominance here. And then again, I'm lucky because I have good insurance...maybe I shouldn't be speaking for those that are without.

What I see with this is win-win for politicians, who let's face it, worry about their careers a lot. They can say they voted for a public option - then to a different crowd, say how they supported it ONLY because it was voluntary. They can say to one group they voted for a public option, and to the lobbyists note they got the opt-out.

This is about having your cake and eating it too.

Another scheme for Dems to weasel out of doing the right thing. You think the neanderthal governors of Texas and Georgia will willingly give the public option an opportunity in their state? Not by the hair of their confederate chinny-chin-chins. So the people of those states will be screwed by the insurance cartel (again) for the benefit of corporate bought-and-paid-for politics. It is disgusting.

"You reap what you sew."

Or, you know, "sow". As in, sowing seed, which gets reaped. Unlike items of clothing, which generally don't.

If this gets the dang bill out of the Senate, fine. If this sweeps more Dems into power here in Texas when the Repubs opt out, bonus.

"You think the neanderthal governors of Texas and Georgia will willingly give the public option an opportunity in their state?"

Frankly my dear Scarlet, I don’t give a damn

Is anyone else concerned that what this "opt-out" plan will do is to shift massive lobbying funds to the state legislatures? I mean, if you think Washington can be corrupt, it's nothing compared to what transpires in state capitols.

The analogy to the stimulus is exactly right. Not only are those politicians who voted or spoke out against it not turning down the money, they are begging for more. Same thing would happen with the public option. Those few (if any) who actually voted to turn down the public plan would quickly pay a heavy price for it. Next thing you know, Republicans will become self-styled "defenders" of the public option the way they have become so for Medicare during this ridiculous "debate."

The same could happen here, especially given the national popularity of the public option. It's even easier to imagine some states opting out, and then opting back in when they see other states benefiting from the public-private competition.

Well, that's the whole point. It might be better named the "Put Up or Shut Up" option.

You think the neanderthal governors of Texas and Georgia will willingly give the public option an opportunity in their state?"

Frankly my dear Scarlet, I don’t give a damn

Posted by: jefft452 on October 8, 2009 at 5:22 PM | PERMALINK

Said like a heartless Rethug who doesn't "give a damn" about anyone but himself. Frankly, my dear, I really DO care for the people of Georgia and Texas. And if you were half a real human, so would you.

This is an awful idea. We need to rescue people from the states, not condemn them to the right wing whims of hayseed legislators. This isn't good policy. It's simply another fig leaf for Democrats who want a bill, any bill, even Baucus' police state mandate bill, just so they can tell voters a year hence that they "reformed" health care.

What a sham. I've voted for Democrats since 1968. But today's Democratic Party is not the party of FDR, HST, or even LBJ. It's just as beholding to Wall Street, Big Pharma, and the insurance cartel as is the Republican Party. If it screws-up health care this time, the sun never will rise on the day that I vote for any Democrat for any office.

An opt-out? Hell, no.

"I really DO care for the people of Georgia and Texas"

Which is why you are should be outraged that we don’t have strong federal laws over-ruling anti-union state laws, but no, you save your outrage for a blog poster who doesn’t show proper respect for the gone with the julep culture of dear ole Dixie

If the whole country was more like New England the people of Georgia and Texas would have a higher standard of living

If the whole country was more like Dixie the people of New England would have a lower standard of living

"Which is why you are should be outraged that we don’t have strong federal laws over-ruling anti-union state laws, but no, you save your outrage for a blog poster who doesn’t show proper respect for the gone with the julep culture of dear ole Dixie"---so sayeth Jefft452

Duh--we were talking about unions? Damn, I never would'a known. I guess you have to be from Massachusetts to appreciate this leap in logic.

Fang @4:53 nails it.

This is all about giving politicians enough wiggle room to spin their vote which ever way they want to their constituents. And at the end of the day, that's more important to a politician then hot sex with a campaign aid's wife.

Also, name me one other federal program that states can ignore or not allow their citizens to participate in?

Wait -- isn't this actually fairly common? For example, in the case of highway funds, doesn't it work like so: the feds make money available contingent on things like speed limits. If you want to do it your own way, fine, but you don't get the federal money.

Also, IIRC, there was that whole move to "block grants" in the 1990s, whereby states claimed the right to administer as they saw fit what had previously been federal mandates... right? I'm not a policy wonk, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

Yeeeeeee Haaaaaaaaaaaa!

"Duh--we were talking about unions? Damn, I never would'a known."

Unions, Health Care, Energy policy, Abortion, Education, Criminal Justice, etc etc
You name it, the south is holding us back

I say we go forward,
if we drag them along with us great!

But if not? Well Im sorry we cant afford to stay still because miss Scarlet might get the vapors
Southernonics has turned us from the highest standard of living in the world in the 40’s 50’s & 60’s with the future so bright we had to wear shades to the brink of another great depression with Phill Gramm, Tom Delay, & Newt Gingrich at the helm

FlipYrWhig, you're correct.

”government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem” - Ronald Reagan. Does any other quote better capture the animating sentiment behind Reagan and the conservative ascendancy he led?

The public option is an unusually obvious test of that sentiment. If a public option is tried and withers away Reaganism is vindicated. If it gives better value for money and progressively displaces private insurance it will become example #1 that at times government really is the best solution.

A state by state opt-out of the public option will bring the effectiveness of government into sharp relief for a long time to come. If as liberals assume the public option gives better value for money all states will eventually opt in, with bloody ideological battles in legislatures after legislature along the way. At the end the assumption that government sucks will be shared only by a core of diehards, and it will become impossible for Republicans to win national office by bashing government. Reaganism will move from a vital approach to government into history. Reagan himself will remain admired as someone who brought something to his time and place, but who no longer speaks to the present.

If the public option withers away because it is poorly designed, undermined, or (I find this hard to imagine but it is possible) out-competed by insurance companies it will be a blow to Democrats and Reaganism will remain a vital part of politics.

The stakes could hardly be higher but the downside is mostly on the Republicans. If the public option fails it will fail quietly. There will be no need to openly fight it out in legislatures; individuals will switch to insurance and numbers will go down. Republicans will get a big I told you so, but so long as health care reform as a whole is a success Democrats will still see a net gain.

The downside for Republicans must be frightening. A huge defeat when health care is passed followed by year after year of people switching away from big biness to gummint. This long slide will be punctuated by dramatic set pieces in conservative states as ideologues fight to limit choice for their own people.

If people in red states lose the public option because of what their state government does, they can vote those fellas out.

They voted them in, they can vote them out. And if they don't, they suffer the consequences.

Simple.

While I don't agree with everything you said, there are some good points.

There is ample precedent for the kind of trick represented by the opt-out version. Initially, Social Security excluded classes of workers, such as agriculture workers, that were dominated by minorities. Without such an exclusion, the legislation would never have passed, because in the 30's the segregationist southern senators in the Democratic party would have blocked it.

Eventually, everyone was covered by Social Security. The same thing will happen here, except that it won't take as long.

It seems unfair to punish consumers in deep "red" states, just because they're governed by far-right conservatives.

Sorry, these morons have a 300-year history of supporting Ol' Massa against their own best interests. Fuck'm. Let the white south die earlier and more painfully. We needed to get rid of these people 150 years ago.

Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize.

NPR had Fox News commentator Juan Williams on to grumble that the pick is an obvious repudiation of Bush and the Republicans. Of course.

Obama's famous convention speech was about how we are all Americans. He said there are no red states, no blue states, but the United States of America- all Americans deserve health care reform. Either this is a country or it's not.

Let the white south die earlier and more painfully.

And the black south will die with them, you stupid shit.