depending on how it actually is spelled out, this is either the first baby step toward universal health care -- single payer a la medicare -- or, this is "sorry, suckers... yet again...

I am extremely pleased. This is not the best, but is a huge huge moment in the health care mess.

Remember, this is the bill that goes into conference, where stuff gets put in and stripped back out again.

Not every blue-eyed father has a blue-eyed child, but every blue-eyed child has a blue-eyed father.

It cannot be said enough that the senators get the best health care in the world. Reid's doctor just successfully implanted a spine where there wasn't one before.

Still, the cynic in me says to reserve judgment, but the kid in me likes the frosted side.

The major problem with the opt out provision, IMHO, is that it will wind up costing us more money in the long run! The states that will opt out, read wingnut states, are also the ones who receive the most in benefits from the rest of us and have the most unhealthy residents. So the welfare costs, medicaid costs, food stamps, WIC, and other federal programs will need to be increased to take care of them. It is a major lose lose proposition for us all!

My guess is that when push comes to shove few states will actually opt out of the plan. See Bobby Jindal and Stimulus Funds.

Full credit to Harry Reid for knowing his friends from his enemies.

On the conference, yes, no one knows WHAT is going on there. HOWEVER, if the Senate bill has a PO, and the House bill has a PO, the conference bill WILL HAVE a PO. That's a BIG FER SHER, there.

Those who have not completely drunk the public option koolaide may be interested to know that Weiner spoke at the PNHP conf this weekend and expressed concern that Pelosi was going to go back on her word and not allow a vote on his SP amendment. Call your reps and have them insist that Pelosi bring it to the floor for a vote.

At a state level, maintaining ideological purity is much less relevant than providing social services.

Presidential fat-chance Tim Pawlenty has also signalled that he wants to opt out. I'd like to see him try to do that.

Is it even a possiblility that the republicans will be forced to mount a real fillibuster if the senate can't manage the 60 votes? I'd like to see them try that too. That'll go over well.

every blue-eyed child has a blue-eyed father.

Not necessarily. Two non-blue-eyed parents, each with recessive blue eye gene (mywife and I), can have a blue eyed child (like my youngest daughter).

I'm wondering which states would actually opt out. Even wingnutty states are generally pretty good at not leaving any federal money on the table, and to the extent they buy this crap about public option being tax-supported, I should think they would want to keep their place at the trough.

Well, the confrontations at the Town Hall Meetings last summer didn't succeed in indtimidating Dems from going forward. All the talk about Socialism, Hitler, Communism, FEMA camps, government takeovers and Death Panels didn't generate much in the way of real public opposition. The Tea Bag movement is a joke.

So what do the Republican losers have left? Watch for calls for filibusters and "bipartisanship" and accusations of Chicago-style decision making. That's about it, then we get a public option.

I think the need is so great and most states are so broke, that very few would actually opt out once the program is implemented. Of course I am expecting sanity and logic from generally insane and illogical people.

I really hate the "60-vote threshold" as the mandatory Senate standard operating procedure for every stinkin' piece of legislation.

Again, if there is a public option then the question to be asked before we all pop the champagne is -- Who will be eligible?

I'm not talking about states that may or may not opt out. I want to know whether I will be able to tell my insurance corporation to take their crappy, high-deductible policy and shove it in their outbound slot.

From HuffPo:

"Progressives oppose the opt-out provision that Reid intends to include to win conservative support, arguing that Americans in conservative states that may opt out are in just as much need of a public option as are residents of blue states.

Sen. Lamar Alexander, a Republican leader from Tennessee, said on the Senate floor Monday, in advance of Reid's announcement, that the opt-out provision isn't to be taken seriously. Medicaid, he noted, has an opt-out provision, but not one state has opted out. Public health insurance, in other words, is too popular for states to opt out."

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/26/reid-the-public-option-wi_n_334284.html

I say"woo-hoo"... and I guess I'm more of a POed Lib than a niell

Basically, what the opt-out system means is, the insurance industry will be able to buy sufficient votes in sufficient state legislatures to have a sufficient number of states "opt out," such that the "public option" will effectively be dead in at least half the country, thus insuring the profit levels of the industry.

Sorry, folks, progressives just lost big-time with this one and the insurance industry just won bigger-time. You think it's hard to buy enough state legislators to do this? Those scum come cheap.

Read this:

"Insurers Poised To Reap Benefits From Health Care Overhaul"

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-health-insure26-2009oct26,0,757790.story

TCinLA

Have you been reading how many of the "anti-Obama-stimulus" GOP guvs have been all too happy to trumpet the things they accomplished with the $ from it?

I think you're going to see Zero states opting out, and if they do, there will be hell to pay for those who decided to refuse Fed $.

Cloture or get clouted

We need a web site where we can pledge funds to defeat any Democratic Senator who refuses to support cloture.

Something loud.
And $omething $eriou$ly threatening...

Call it: Party discipline enforced from the outside in...

We can't afford to keep arguing about which conditions must be met before we pass a bill. It's already been too long and people are fed up.

Look at how closely people study state coverage and tax laws when they consider where to place their elderly parents. When sick, bankrupted families in Opting Out states see people like them covered in other states they will either pressure their state legislatures or pack up their bags and move. Companies will follow the work force. Teachers, firemen, police, construction, etc will follow the job opportunities.

If ideologically driven sick people want to remain slaves to the health insurers and a manipulated "free market" in health care, then I guess that's their option.

Have you been reading how many of the "anti-Obama-stimulus" GOP guvs have been all too happy to trumpet the things they accomplished with the $ from it?

There aren't any big-moneyed industries lobbying to prevent states from accepting stim cash; in fact, it's just the opposite.

The PO is another matter entirely.

Basically, what the opt-out system means is, the insurance industry will be able to buy sufficient votes in sufficient state legislatures to have a sufficient number of states "opt out," such that the "public option" will effectively be dead in at least half the country, thus insuring the profit levels of the industry.

Frankly, I doubt it. Too many of the critical states are solid blue, and I just don't see all that many choosing to opt out. If you even get half of the states, particularly the big ones like California, New York, Massachusetts, Illinois, and the like, that's more than enough to support a robust public option with plenty of bargaining power.

The PO is another matter entirely.

But then those legislators have to go back to pissed-off constituents and at the state level those legislators are a lot closer to those constituents. Sure, a lot of the individual legislators will vote to opt out, but I'm afraid I don't share your pessimism on the number of actual states that will opt out. The insurance industry just doesn't have enough money to overcome popular support in every state.

I'm with POed et all, in general; once the Public Option gets a toehold, it's gonna grow, not shrink. The devil, of course, will be in the details... Who gets a chance at it (in the states which don't opt out); will it be enough people to make it a strong (and progressively cheaper) option? How easy/difficult will it be for the states to opt out and who decides (guv? legislature? plebiscite?)? Etc, etc, etc. But, as of the moment, I'm cautiously optimistic.

I look at it this way: of the various options that were seriously on the table over the past couple of months, including a trigger, an opt-in plan, no plan, co-ops, and so on, the opt-out plan was definitely the best of the lot. Would I prefer a real, robust public option, with rates tied to Medicare? Hell, yes. Would I like single-payer even more? Of course. Were either of these politically feasible? Not as far as I could tell.

And look at this way: Harry Reid basically just told Olympia Snowe to jump in the lake. That's a huge win, as far as I'm concerned.

Cloture or get clouted.

Yes. We need to start this NOW.

PLEASE someone start this.