"OPT OUT"!!!! . . . At last the Democrats got the language right!

[skip fox]

I heard Fox and Friends weakly suggest it should be "opt in," in terms of torque/slant/administration, but they've been preempted by the far better sounding "OPT OUT." Thus, states have to take active measures to restrict their citizens' choices.

The politics of language here is perfect.

As a poet I could tell you how this works (the "o" sounds are close cousins and the "t" constitutes exact consonance).

As a Democrat I'll tell you why this will work . . .

Who wouldn't want more options????? Simple as that. So any state which tells its citizenry that it should have less options, had best be prepared for some radical puzzlement and party realignment.

[TwilightGardener]

1. I think opt-out is a good idea. It puts MEGA pressure on Repub

Govs and Repub-dominated legislatures.

[rucky]

2. I've been playing it out in my mind, and tend to agree.

of course it's going to suck for uninsured in Red states, but it'll be easier for citizens and groups to put pressure on state governments - and harder for the insurance lackeys to control the message in local media.

[TwilightGardener]

4. I do feel bad for those in red states who couldn't participate (as a red-stater myself), but

a big, evil part of me wants to see all the GOPers, teabagger types, and McCain/Palin voters (some of whom are certainly uninsured, unemployed, or can't afford premiums, just like everyone else) being forced into cementing their "anti-soshulist" convictions in the face of options that could really help them.

[skip fox]

5. More than likely people will start thinking. I.e., political realignments ahead.

I just hope that this is what they settle on today.

[Oregone]

3. "Who wouldn't want more options"

I wouldn't. I have a single health insurer I can possibly choose from for primary care.

My politicians share it with me. It has not deductible or copay, and costs about $108 a month. It does not discriminate or set limits, and no one goes bankrupt with it. If the manifestation of "choice" creates a wild west free market system that the US is suffering from, I can only go so far as to say "choice" is not beneficial for the people

[SPedigrees]

6. There is a vast difference between the "choices" we have now

of various predatory for-profit insurance companies, and the real choice between these insurance cos and a medicare-like public option.

You may be happy with your current insurance coverage, but just wait until you get a serious and expensive health problem and they deny you coverage due to a "pre-existing condition" like a yeast infection 10 years ago. Think it can't happen to you? Think again.

[Oregone]

7. It can't happen to me

Pre-existing condition checks are not legal in this system. Everyone is born with the insurance, the only insurance you can have. Coverage will never be denied. There is no rescission. All procedures are pre-approved, no questions asked.

I most certainly do not need more "choice" than that. Why? I can choose to have any medical procedure done thats necessary from the doctor I select, and thats real "choice"

The argument for "choice" and "competition" in the US is just a distraction. People need sound, affordable coverage. They don't need more logos to choose from. Trying to augment the free market, when it is the free market that has created this mess, seems to ignore the elephant in the room.

[Shagbark Hickory]

8. Politicians want campaign contribs more than they care about people wanting choices.

The health denial companies will be bribing every politician there is to get them to opt out. Said politicians will make up every excuse in the book to opt out.
Opt out is a slow, extremely painful, DEATH of health reform.

[skip fox]

9. OPT OUT is perfect. It will be damned near impossible to vote against

what is so obviously in their favor.

There a point at which the lie machines will not work on more than s small percentage of the population. They can make a traitor out of a war hero (Kerry). They can create resons for a needless war. Etc.

But how many people would vote supporting those who would contend that no one in their state should have a public option??? My guess is that, with a sitution so obviously beneficial as this, no one would make that contention seriously.

[skip fox]

10. It looks like "opt-out public option" will carry the day. Don't be discouraged.

It's actually very good I think.

It will even take the issue from the Republicans. Which will be good for two reasons: 1.) we can get good health insurance nation wide (how many triobites will not let the citizens from their state have cheaper GOOD health care?), and 2.) the Republicans will lose on this.

I'm not nearly as excited about #2 and #1. If I could have the Republicans not lose and get health good insurance for all, I'd certainly be for it. If the Republicans are smart, they'll see the writing on the wall and begin to work together to get something passed now. Little change of that, however. They've painted themselves into a corner.

[Hutzpa]

11. This could be the reason

why that rat Eric Cantor came out in support of the Public Option because they have
been opt in....well caught pants down...}( makes a lot of sense now.

Anyway foot on the pedal applying gas...