The state opt out for public option is wrong. Dean is dead wrong to support it.

[madfloridian]

For goodness sake think about the people in states like mine with right wing ideologues running it, and with no Democrats strong enough to speak up.

It will do more harm than good, and they should pass nothing rather than an opt out version.

I saw Chuck Schumer on TV this morning discussing it, and he looked sheepish as well he should. It could harm so many states under Republican ideological rule...like Florida.

Then I read that Howard Dean said he could live with it, and would vote for it. It sounds like a sell-out to me.

Have all of our Democrats forgotten why we sent them to DC? Have they gotten to Dean's more conservative nature already?

This angers me. From Huff Post:

Dean: If I Were A Senator I'd Vote For Opt-Out Public Option

One of the most respected progressive voices on health care reform said on Thursday that he could live with and even support a compromise to the public plan that would grant states the right to reject the option entirely.

Former DNC Chair Howard Dean told the Huffington Post that the "opt-out" compromise that is being discussed by Senate Democrats was not his ideal conception of what a health care overhaul should be. But he granted that the proposal would produce "real reform" and said that, if there were no other vehicle for getting a bill through the Senate, he would support it.

"If I were a member of the U.S Senate I wouldn't vote for the bill but I would vote for this," Dean said, "not because it is necessarily the right thing to do but because it gets us to a better conversation about what we need to do."

In a brief telephone interview, Dean stressed repeatedly that his preference remained, far and away, a national public option that was available to anyone -- regardless of state -- from the day of its conception. But in a wholly political context, he acknowledged, adding the opt-out option to the bill might be the best and only way to get something through the Senate.

Did he just give up fighting for real reform? Does he realize that with all our efforts we have lost even though we have a big majority? Is he trying to stay viable within the party for the future?

Just remember Florida and other states like it if our party goes down that road for state opt-out of the public option. Our health care conditions could worsen here.

Dean has no vote, but shame on him for caving.

[madfloridian]

1. All our donations and efforts from 2003 on till November 2008

are going to be rendered null and void if pathetic stuff like this goes through in the health care bill.

My sense of obligation and caring is just about gone.

[xultar]

2. Actually he isn't. I think in the end states opting out will make the pubs look like shit.

Dem states healthcare and a PO Repub states zilch and ending up look like shit.
If it didn't hurt people it would be fun to watch.

[Altoid_Cyclist]

15. That's what I was thinking also.

The only problem will be the fact that people will continue to die and suffer until their red state folds.

The Democratic leaders should have been a lot stronger at the beginning of the HCR debate instead of waiting for the Repukes to reach across the aisle in the name of "bipartisan policy".

They (Repukes)never had any desire to do anything more than sink HCR from the beginning.

[MajorChode]

182. That's why it's a brilliant plan

It's just like the stimulus money. Repug governors will piss and moan incessantly about it, but at the end of the day they will not opt out as to do so would be political suicide.

So if it gets a real public option bill through congress, then I say go for it. No Repug gov is going to be stupid enough to slit his own wrists.

[scheming daemons]

3. Gets the foot in the door... and puts pressure on redstaters to oust their idealogues

..when they see how much better off their blue-state brethren are.




Dean understands the political reality. We have to get SOME Public option in.... and then... angry hordes in the red states will oust their rightwing politicians and opt in.

...or ... you could vote with your feet and move to a state that is enlightened.




Dean is correct here.

[ddeclue]

17. Dean is wrong and people who think he's right don't understand state level politics or how lobbyists

operate.

This means that the lobbyists will get to take on tiny little state legislatures one at a time which is far easier than taking on Congress in the national spot light.

Also there are plenty of states in the hands of Republicans that will opt out out of spite, like Florida or Texas or Georgia or practically any Southern state.

Then there are plenty of states who have "no deficit spending" written into their constitutions like California or Florida which won't be able to vote yes because there will end up being some state spending required to make this happen so they will be forced to vote no to keep from increasing state spending in bad economic times and going into deficit spending.

This is a stinky idea and a way for the Senators to pretend they passed reform without it ACTUALLY happening on the ground.

:argh:

[iceman66]

84. No he isn't.

This would have the opposite effect.

Unless this is a national plan, it will encourage businesses to move jobs to red states where they wouldn't have to pay any additional taxes to support a public option. The low tax/anti-union climate has already caused a lot of businesses to set up shop in the South and this will only exacerbate that.

[DireStrike]

201. Didn't think of that.

That turns my support around in a hurry.

There has to be some way in the bill to prevent that from happening or it will be trouble.

[Tansy_Gold]

202. Excellent, excellent point

Arizona has enough problems as a right to work state; this would only create more.

:yourock:




TG

[rudy23]

105. What happens when Pres. Jeb Bush closes the door on that foot in 2013 before it can get going?

Not to propose the unthinkable, but how many more steps backwards are we going to have to make?

I don't want to have to move a state or three away from my parents, I'm the only one who can take care of them!

[scheming daemons]

121. A) Obama will win in 2012... quite easily and B)......

Just like no Republican President has ever taken away Medicare and/or Social Security... none would dare touch this once it gets started.

[rudy23]

147. They tried like hell to get at Social Security, and they'll do it again.

I don't agree that "none would dare touch" it. Bush dared to put his grubby paws all over it.

[The Magistrate]

4. This Is, Ma'am, In My View, An Excellent Idea

Owing to its political ramifications over time. It will, as the Maoists say, 'heighten the contradictions' to unacceptable levels. States will have to take a positive action to reject the coverage. The result will be clearly higher death rates and higher insurance premiums in states which do this. This will alter political dynamics in their legislative elections. People who voted to reject the measure will be replaced by people who will embrace it. Within a very few two-year cycles, the thing will be universal....

[madfloridian]

8. States like mine will NOT do anything but harm the people.

[The Magistrate]

16. Then A Number Of Local Politicians, Ma'am, Would Soon Be Forced Into Retirement

Voters will turn against an explicit vote to kill and bankrupt the citizenry....

[madfloridian]

21. Not here, they would not. People don't know or understand or care.

They expect God to provide.

[The Magistrate]

24. Enough Would Learn, Ma'am

Indeed, the learning curve would be pretty steep.

[CTyankee]

62. I problem I see, Magistrate, is that the same fear campaigns we have all just witnessed

will be rerun in red states, scaring people in the state over "death panels" and granny killing. Blue states would be regarded as "socialists" just as European countries are now in our national debate.

If there would be rational debates in each red state, then your assessment would be fine. But you know, and I know, what's REALLY going to happen.

[The Magistrate]

73. Doubtless The Enemy Will Struggle, Ma'am

But the line of assault, resting on lies and exaggerations, will not be so effective when it is pressed against increased costs and exaggerated differentials in health outcomes, that people will experience directly in their own lives. People are not nearly so stupid as they are given credit for....

[CTyankee]

106. Magistrate, have you ever read Barbara Tuchman's "March of Folly"?

She outlines that march in several empires over history, marches that were inspired and fed by fear, fantasy, irrational ideology, just plain irrationality. She starts with Troy and ends with Vietnam.

My analogy here is just to demonstrate that even when people have rational reasons to act in a certain way, they don't. Just look at how long it has taken us to get even THIS far...we're the only modern industrialized nation to do health care this way...I remember hearing those arguments about "socialized medicine" going back 40 years! It's STILL being argued. Plus ca change...

[The Magistrate]

113. Yes, Ma'am: It is An Excellent Work

And it is certainly true that people do not always behave in their own best interests. But in the final analysis, when they simply refuse to do this, there is no outside help for it. This course would at least give people a chance to understand the situation, and choose to act in their own best interests in light of the object lesson. If a measure on these lines can command sufficient votes to pass the Senate, where a measure on more pleasing lines might still fail of acceptance, pressing the former would be the best course.

[CTyankee]

124. If this comes to pass, I certainly hope that your prognosis is right.

But please understand that this will not be pretty for the people of those states to endure until they attain enlightenment.

A little story comes to mind: my father (a Republican) was very much opposed to the passage of LBJ's Medicare program and railed against it loudly to my mother (a Democrat). It was passed and when he turned 65 my mother said to him, "Surely you won't TAKE Medicare, will you? After all those bad things you said would happen." Mother and I got such a laugh out of it...and Daddy shut up about Medicare from then on...

[The Magistrate]

129. Your Story, Ma'am, is A Hopeful One

And could probably multiplied to legion from those years.

We are in agreement that the results of this will not be pretty in some places, and that would be, should this come to pass, most regrettable.

[CTyankee]

137. Perhaps I should add that I grew up in Texas and if that state could have opted out of Medicare

they most assuredly would have done so. I, like my mother, was a Democrat and moved north once I got here to go to college. I never moved back. My brother did not and felt the same way Daddy did. Tragically, he ended up on a Medicaid waiver and spent his last days in a nursing home, which is where he died very suddenly. Ironic, is it not?

[dionysus]

133. but polling shiows the fear campaigns didn't do much to sway numbers.

[CTyankee]

138. I hope and pray that this would also be the outcome were there to be an opt out measure.

Hopefully, if so, there will be a very strong PR campaign to help people understand the stakes involved in opting out and there will be a rejection of it.

[dionysus]

139. i believe any state that opts out will remain opted out only until the next election cycle.

[SWr]

190. I get it

Voters have very short memories ... you hit them with additional costs we can kiss Democratic control goodbuy.

[The Magistrate]

195. The Higher Costs, Sir, Would Owe To Republican State Governments, In This Case

[SWr]

203. your a foolish gambler

THE PEOPLE WOULD OWE and PAY DEARLY!!!!

Brilliant plan ... punish the voters because our ELECTED (so called 'leaders') cant get

the job done in the Senate.

[The Magistrate]

209. Fancy a Small Wager, Sir?

"Round and round and round she goes, and where she stops nobody knows, 'cept the good Lord and he don't spill, 'cause he gets a cut from the pit boss...."

[Sebastian Doyle]

29. A lot of those people may well change their minds when they're faced with huge medical bills

and their ain't no checks from God floating down from Heaven to cover them.

[joeycola]

37. I think it is close to the analogy of Medicaid. Poor states can not

contribute much to the matching funds. People go without health care --and some die. I can see this happening to the opt out states.

[MNDemNY]

67. You are dreaming. Glenbeckistan will not fold.

[The Magistrate]

75. Its Population, Sir, Will Be Revealed As Much Smaller Than Presently Credited, However....

And that will be sufficient in the passage of time.

[MNDemNY]

79. 10-20 years?? 30-40????

more? Do you have any limit to your surrender?

[The Magistrate]

92. Do You Find, Sir, Shrieking Till Your Cheeks Go Blue To Be Of Help In These Things?

If this is the form the measure takes, it will isolate the enemy politically, and turn a number of his followers against their leadership, and energize a number of people who do not align with the enemy to work actively against him, as they have not done heretofore. What you are calling 'surrender' is in fact the opening gambit in a climactic campaign, and one which embodies a very sound strategy for victory.

"The soundest strategy is to take positions that are readily defensible while possessing such potential for offensive action that the enemy is compelled to attack us in them."

[MNDemNY]

98. 20years? 30? 50? How many years before your "gambit" pays off?

How many years are acceptable to you?

[madfloridian]

110. I am shrieking also Magistrate, sir. We all should be doing so.

If this is the form the measure takes, we will lose in 2010.

[Joe Fields]

170. I have little faith, but I do see your point.

And, it just might be a way for republicans to maintain some semblence of political cover, while voting for this measure.

Still, it's congress, and they will surely fuck up this wet dream of ours.

[Tansy_Gold]

"How many deaths will it take 'til he knows. . . . . "

You've just condemned, sir, with your oh so polite ma'ams and your neatly capitalized headers, thousands of people to unnecessary deaths for the sake of making a political point.

You don't give a rat's behind about those people. Obviously neither does Howard Dean, or most of the people in the upper house of congress -- the Senate.

what will it take to get through to you and people like you that your compromises will leave many of us -- US -- with no option at all?

I live in a red state. A red state that elected a Democratic governor a few years ago. We'd still have her if she hadn't been swept off into the Obama administration. Instead we've got a rightwing ideologue for a governor, and even worse for Senators.

Have you no shame, Mag? Are you so comfortable in wherever you are that you don't give a shit about the people you are so blithely writing off? We're just expendable so you and yours can get a foot in the door?


Olbermann wasn't nearly angry enough.




Tansy Gold is.

[The Magistrate]

178. Let Us Examine, Ma'am, The Full Implications Of Our Positions, Then

You would seem to be urging that nothing short of a fully available national government insurance program be the center-piece of any Bill. This is indeed the proper way to structure the system. The problem with this is that it might very well fail of passage if put in that form to the Senate as presently constituted. That would end action on this matter certainly for a term of years.

Thus, your apparent posture, were it to serve as the guide for action, might very well result in nothing but the continuation of the present system nationwide, leading to continuance of the full total of more than forty thousand early deaths yearly, for however long that condition continued. That is pretty poor ground from which to accuse another of heartless disregard for human life.

The idea of a public option from which states may choose to remove themselves would, if it actually became policy, certainly effect some reduction of this death toll, since obviously many states, and most of the most populous states, would not remove themselves from the system. That is a certain gain, which can be set against both the reduced toll that would continue at present rates in states which did reject the program, and against the purely hypothetical total reduction from an immediate nationwide public option plan, which might well fail of passage if brought to a vote in the present Senate.

A proposal on these lines may well gain a number of votes that might otherwise go against a bill containing a public option. It is, on one level, a simple exercise in providing political cover for Senators and Representatives who are cowards in the face of loud Republican and corporate opposition, and fools where economic matters are concerned. But it is also, on another level, a sharp edged tool indeed against the very political elements that would move a state to reject the plan, since it offers them a chance to step out and do something that would prove very unpopular with the voters of such states.

[Tansy_Gold]

186. The problem, Mag, is that we didn't even try it

As has been said by brighter lights than I, "we" started from the position of major compromise. Instead of forcing "them" to meet us halfway, we started at "halfway" --- or half-assed as some might say -- and then let "them" talk us into further compromise, such that we reached the point we're at now which is discussing as a "viable" option a "public" option that would kick a significant portion of the "public" to the curb before a vote is even taken.

And yes, I fully understand the importance of getting the bill, any bill, out of THE COMMITTEE so a compromise bill can be written and voted on and then a conference bill can be written and voted on.

None of us here is a senator or a congressperson -- or at least I don't think any of us are -- and so all we're doing is voicing our opinions and venting our frustrations. Here, of all places, we ought to be promoting that fully available national government health system and working not to compromise it further and further and further away from that but working to GET IT.

To paraphrase Dr. King, health care delayed is health care denied.

And yes, I'm one of those without health "insurance," and I can't get it because of those nasty pre-existing conditions. I'm fortunate to have a family doctor 60 miles away who gives me discounts on my annual routine visits and a pharmacy that gives discounts on quantity purchases that aren't limited by insurance. But for emergencies, I'm limited to the local Urgent Care -- $95 to walk through the door -- or an ER 9 miles away that can bill me and put a lien on my home if I can't pay. (I'm self-employed so they can't go after my "wages.")

So it all just fries me that here we are on Democratic Underground -- not DLC Aboveground -- and many of us are defending these compromises!

I'm sorry, Mag, but I'm not willing to write millions of my fellow citizens, Dem or puke, off so cavalierly.



Tansy Gold

[The Magistrate]

193. Then We Are Really in Agreement, Ma'am

The process has been botched horribly, by the White House and especially by the Senate. Baucus and Reid in particular have behaved in a manner so disgusting as to leave me preferring to see a Republican in either of their seats. It will cheer me immensely if Reid is defeated next year; he deserves it.

The proper course would have been to propose "Medicare Part E', as it has been dubbed, the extension of Medicare to everyone, as the first, and root, proposal, and force the enemy to fight against this for even the slightest modification to it.

But what was done was done, and we are at the point we are at now. This proposal offers a good shot at gaining the goal in time, and so deserves support.

[Tansy_Gold]

206. No, we aren't in agreement. At least not on the end point

"This proposal offers a good shot at gaining the goal in time, and so deserves support."

It most assuredly does NOT offer a good shot at gaining the goal in time. It provides NOTHING for too many people, it leaves myriad loopholes and doughnut holes, and it shows that the Dems cannot function in a position of "power."

1. What happens to Medicare and Medicaid in states that opt out? Or to states that opt in? Okay, so even if Medicare, already instituted, remains as-is, there's still Medicaid. What happens to its funding? It's a FEDERAL program. Will states now have to opt in to Medicaid? Or, worse, will they be able to opt out?

2. What happens to a citizen of an opt-in state who visits an opt-out state? Are they covered or not? I dont know where you live. I live in Arizona where we have bazillions of people who live half the year in Illinois or South Dakota or Minnesota or Michigan or Ohio or Montana, and half the year in Arizona. So if Minnesota opts in, are those snowbirds covered while they're in Arizona? Does Banner Baywood Hospital in Mesa send the bill to St. Paul for reimbursement? Here in Arizona we already deal with lots and lots and LOTS of Canadians, who know exactly what date they have to get back across the border in order to maintain their health care coverage. Will there be limits placed on opt-in-staters who go to opt-out states?

3. What about opt-out-staters who go to opt-in states? Are they covered, or not?



This kind of "compromise" does nothing but give the anti-health-care-reform rightwing a foot in the door. It makes the whole thing so tangled, so confused, so impossible to administer that it's doomed to failure.

For the individual to have an opt-out, fine, sort of. If you opt out, you don't pay and you don't get coverage and if something happens you're shit outta luck. (I suppose that goes for your family, too, and isn't that a fine howdy-do to them if they don't have the choice and they don't have the income to pay for it.)

But I think it's completely unconscionable for ANYONE, and especially Howard Dean of all people, to voice any support for this absurd idea.



Tansy Gold

[The Magistrate]

208. Nothing Currently Known, Ma'am, Would Affect Either Medicare Or Medicaid

Eligibility for these is defined by existing statute. A measure which extended eligibility for these, such as proposals make persons at some level above the defined poverty rate, would not be affected. What is referred to is the creation of a Federally administered insurance pool, separate from any existing program. Once established, this could well be expanded, as it will be a handy vehicle, and likely pretty popular as an insurance choice.

The 'anti-health-care-reform rightwing' already has a good deal more than a foot in the door; it is standing bodily in the door-way. This proposal makes it impossible for them to block action in states they do not dominate politically, which comprise a healthy majority of the population, and forces them to take pointblank responsibility for ill-health and high costs in those states they dominate at present. That is likely to have political consequences unpleasant for them.

[Tansy_Gold]

212. I'm so glad you're so willing to sacrifice so many of your fellow

Democrats to make a political point to the pukes. They may have "unpleasant" political consequences in the longer term, but in the more immediate term, people will die.

Those of us who live in red states, about whom you quite obviously don't give a shit, will die so that you can make a point. So that you can get a foot in the door. Excuse me if I don't applaud your good fortune.

Medicare and Medicaid are indeed regulated by FEDERAL statutes. But once the red states get to opt out of the so-called public option, how far behind do think will be opting out of Medicare and Medicaid? Why not balance Arizona's budget on the backs of the poor, stripping them of any kind of subsidized health care?

I don't feel so stupid any more. My comments about opt-in vs. opt-out states? Seems other people have considered those ramifications, too. Lawrence O'Donnell on Olbermann just said it's a terrible idea that it will lead to the "insurance Balkanization" of the country.

Way to go, Mag. Way to go.


Tansy Gold

[kjackson227]

82. Yep, I can relate :(

[DevonRex]

Thank you for this reply. It's so obvious, yet few seem to have

thought it through to the eventual result.

[madfloridian]

54. I did. I see it as not using the power of a majority.

And I am not stupid. I am no dummy.

Some things are right, some are just plain wrong.

Our party is caving on health care, and Dean is joining them.

[MNDemNY]

60. And how much more "watering down" are you willing to tolerate???

Is there any end to what you are willing to give in on???

[CrownPrinceBandar]

93. I think you propose a dangerous game, sir.............

I think you give credit to the "better angels" where none may exist. A two-year election cycle, or "learning curve" as you put it, will lead to needless denial of care and a windfall for the for-profit insurance companies, especially if there is a personal mandate. Maybe shame used to be a positive motivator, it seems it no longer holds sway.

I believe a strong national program is the only way to go. It will eliminate this half-measure and will most likely prevent a future candidate having to deal with this issue again.

[The Magistrate]

107. It Is A Dangerous Game, Your Grace, There Is No Question Of That

Nor is there any question that there will be some suffering associated with it; in fact, that is necessary, if the thing is to play out to the end desired, a condition in which all states accept the public program. That suffering is the spur to move the people to pressure state governments that will not do the right thing at the start.

Regarding details, we are at this point only speculating, since there is not yet a final Bill containing particulars. An 'individual mandate', for example, which could be satisfied by recourse to the public program, would not be much of a problem.

It seems to me that the disparity of conditions between the states that participate, and those that refuse, would quickly become so evident, and so disadvantageous to the citizens of the latter, that it would not be long tolerated.

The end result would be what we both desire, a strong national public insurance system.

[CrownPrinceBandar]

120. You are correct sir. It is only speculation at this point.......

However, what I see is the motivation for this state opt-out: getting 60 votes in the Senate. This is very cold arithmetic. The slavish desire for this golden number, I feel, has blinded some of the pundits charged with this task. The math being used takes the human element out of the equation and boils it down to continued contributions from health-care lobbyists and a single-minded desire for re-election.

And while I know you don't advocate suffering, I must toss the question out to the ether: how many people have to suffer from preventable diseases, how many folks have to die, all because of non-access or denial of adequate heath care? The state opt-out is a sad half-measure and should be discarded.

Always a pleasure, sir. Hope you are well.

[The Magistrate]

127. It Seems, Your Grace, We Are More In Agreement Than Otherwise

The damnable fact is that our Senate leadership is incompetent, and unable to guarantee a bloc vote against a Republican filibuster, or even to whip in for certain a bare majority in favor of what is desired by some two thirds of the general public, and easily seven eighths of the voting rank and file of our Party. But facts must be accepted, however uncomfortable they may be.

In regard to the suffering which would occur subsequent to passage of this form of a public option, two things ought to be recognized. First, the sum total of suffering would be reduced, as many states would join the program, and in them, it would have beneficial effect. Second, the suffering which would persist in those states which rejected the program would at least serve as a clear spur to action which could end its continuance quickly.

[mod mom]

115. but don't you think the very ill & medically needy will move to a state that offers

care putting extra financial burden on those states that offer it while allowing those to opt out to have a healthier population? States weren't allowed to opt out of paying for bush's war in Iraq if they didn't support it. Why should some states opt out of this? It seems to me better to spread the risk among all states.

[The Magistrate]

119. Mobility, Ma'am, Is Not So Great As is Often Imagined

The groups you name would be among those who find moving the most difficult.

My personal preference is the extension of Medicare to the entire citizenry, and the extinction of the health insurance vultures in their present form. Any form of 'public option' passed at present must be massaged towards congruence with the former, and the profiteering of the latter thus eliminated from the system.

It does not seem likely that this can be achieved immediately, and so the question becomes how can this goal be best advanced at present. The proposal under discussion here strikes me as a good strategy of campaign towards achieving the desired end.

[MNDemNY]

156. Some states will buy them 1 way bus tickets.

[SWr]

187. With what money?!!!! You think everyone has the means to just pack up and move?

[madfloridian]

5. "What bothers me is the morality of it," he said. I say then why vote for it?

Why vote for what is morally wrong? Yes, people in Florida and other Republican ideological states will suffer dearly if this is passed.

"What bothers me is the morality of it," he said. "Because it is a little like civil rights. If the states are making the case that you don't have to do things that are common decency... there are a lot of people who will end up suffering unfairly."


Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/08/dean-if-i-were-a-senator_n_314118.html

Wrong.

[Dawgs]

10. Because it will still be much better than what is available now.

And, only a dummy would think that any state would opt of it.

[madfloridian]

13. Well, Dawgs, call me a dummy. Everyone else does it. States will opt out.

[Dawgs]

57. Then we will have to disagree. Even republicans aren't dumb enough to try and opt it, IMO.

It's still gets 90% of the way there. That's still a lot better than what we have now.

[MNDemNY]

68. No.

[BlooInBloo]

6. Suckers.

[Dawgs]

7. Dean is right, and not one state will opt-out of it.

No progressive really likes it, but it's better than a co-op, trigger, or nothing; which is exactly what Dean said.

[MNDemNY]

9. Not better than nothing. No STRONG national public option, no bill!

[Dawgs]

14. WHAATTTTT???

"Not better than nothing"

:eyes:

[MNDemNY]

28. Yup.

If there is not a strong NATIONAL public option, the bill should go down. The end.Shitty reform will be set for decades.

[Dawgs]

41. Did you actually read the article, or are you just stupid?

You realize that social security and medicare were kind of "shitty" when they were passed. Would you have voted against those?

[madfloridian]

44. You are calling all of us names today. Does it make you feel better?

[Dawgs]

61. It was a question, not a statement.

:hi:

[MNDemNY]

48. Do you work for UHC, or BC/BS ???

why don't you just send UHC your paychecks. Moran.

[laughingliberal]

49. As I read it the plan is for a NATIONAL public option

States that don't want to participate will have to affirmatively opt out. The article I read said, "preferably by referendum." Putting the referendum on the ballot will, at least, help the states' voters exercise a little democratic rule. As I see it (and this is admittedly without knowing how the details will shake down) the public option will be in place. There will be time for people to see it and evaluate it in relation to other plans in the exchange before a referendum would be there on which to vote.

[MNDemNY]

55. Opt out, making it even LESS universal. Fuck no.

[Dawgs]

63. Why are trying to use logic? Don't you know that DUer's only respond with emotion.

:hi:

[CTyankee]

72. Well, look what happened to Prop 8 in blue California!

Ignorance, religious bigotry and fear were used very effectively to kill civil rights for gay people. We have no reason to believe that a state would even use a referendum and we have every reason to doubt that if there is a referendum it would be debated and presented factually...

[MNDemNY]

77. But..but... we must give the big "O" SOME sort of bill.

Just to say he passed something. ferchrissake, where is your "team" spirit? All that matters is that SOMETHING pass so a fancy "signing ceremony can be had in the Rose Garden. Whether it is any good or not, is irrelevant. sheesh.

[CTyankee]

101. I don't want to believe that Obama would do that. If anything, I think he tries very hard

to be President of all the people, a little too much when it comes to repukes in my book...but I don't think he'll do that.

[MNDemNY]

104. I'd rather not believe it either....but.

[dionysus]

136. christ teh bitterness is strong in this one jim.

[laughingliberal]

112. Well, we have no reason to expect any issue to be presented factually

This whole debate on HCR is a prime example. However, even with the misinformation, disinformation, lunatic town halls, RW media, etc...polls still show a majority in favor of a public option AND totally against a mandate without public option. This is true even of 48% of Republican voters. The public is more engaged and informed on this debate than we would believe by watching MSM.

[dionysus]

134. never mind the fail junkies. to them if this passes it will be "worthless" because it isn't

single payer. for some people the goal posts are on a conveyor belt.

[MNDemNY]

142. And some, like you, have no goal posts.

[SPedigrees]

You've heard of biting off your nose to spite your face, I presume.

Because that's exactly your attitude. I want a first step toward affordable health coverage for everyone, and having such an option in *some* states is better than in no states. People do have the option of relocating to another state after all.

[madfloridian]

11. That is not a realistic statement. Yes, states will opt out.

I would they leave everything alone than do stuff like this.

DO we have a majority or not???

[Dawgs]

22. States will not opt out, and we don't have a majority.

Even if you are right, "I would they leave everything alone" means that you want to continue with denial for pre-existing conditions and not have an exchange, over getting a strong public option for almost every state in the nation. Wow!!

[madfloridian]

27. Hey, fine with me. Our wallets and credit cards are looking really good.

Since we quit donating.

If we can't use a majority, we lose a majority.

Oops, gotta quit quoting Dean now that he is selling out.

[MNDemNY]

33. Mandated insurance without a strong public option IS worse than what wwe have now.

Pure corporate give-away....nothing more.

[MNDemNY]

36. Can you count??? a majority of 100 is 51.

[Dawgs]

45. Right, and we don't have 51 progressives. Can you count?

Or have you not been paying attention? Baucus, Reid, Conrad, and others are not on our side. I don't care if they do call themselves Democrats.

[MNDemNY]

53. again, which insurance giant do you work for???

[Dawgs]

66. That doesn't even make any sense.

Why would someone that worked for the insurance industry support this idea?

[MNDemNY]

71. They are desperate for any "watering down" of a strong public option.

Because they, as I do, know that a strong public option WILL put them out of business as they now know it. And that is a good thing!!!

[Inuca]

26. Some may opt out, probably not many

and probably not yours, I would guess. Crist is not Perry. But the bottom line (on eof them anyway :-)), is that we still know so little about this. It's not a given that the governor will decide, nor the legislature we just don't know. And yes, I agree, if adopted it will probably end up being unfair to some, a relativley small minority, but still unfair without a doubt. But we have to start SOMEHWERE, and IMHO this may be one of the best starting points with a realistic chance of success (both short run, i.e,, getting passed, and longer run, i.e., making things better over time).

[Dawgs]

30. Exactly, and this is coming from someone that lives in a very red state (Georgia).

:hi:

[madfloridian]

34. Crist is not going to be governor.

[Inuca]

46. Right, forgot about that

Still, my basic point still stands I think. Though I definitely understand why the idea upsets you. I can afford to be more magnanimous, I live in IL. OTOH, Il or FL or whatever, the ways things stand now, this would not affect me as long as I have employer-provided insurance, which I do. I 100% agree with those that say that in spite of all the brouhaha, the PO will not be a very big deal, one way or another, as long as access to the exchanges is very limited. That's why I think that Wyden's idea that would open up the exchanges, and that was treated so shabbily (major understatement) by Baucus is a very good one.

[MNDemNY]

43. If we just let them fuck us a little longer, things might get better.

phiiiittt.

[Inuca]

56. Do you know of the magic wand

that will make things better for everybody over night? If you do, contact your COngress people (MN? NY?), they may be able to put it to good use.

[MNDemNY]

64. YOU bend over and take it. I will not.

[The Magistrate]

85. The Prevalence Of This Figure Of Speech, Sir, Is Fascinating....

A person would have to have sodomy on the brain for a great portion of the waking day to have it trip off the tongue so easily and often in argument.

[MNDemNY]

89. Do you have a point?

[Inuca]

116. I think the point was that you are offensive

which you most certainly are. Very easy and very cheap to be rude online. It also says a lot about the person. I am a 57 (soon 58 :-() woman; would you talk like this to my face, I wonder... On second thought, you may, so never mind, glad our "acquaintance" is so limited. Bye!

[MNDemNY]

144. Wasn't asking you.

[Jax]

96. Disgusting

absolutely disgusting...

Alyce

[ecstatic]

50. Just like they opted out of the stimulus?

:shrug:

[SPedigrees]

103. Excellent analogy! nt

[undeterred]

12. I think my state could do it better than a Federal public option.

We have the Dems and the plan, but not the money.

[Selatius]

18. Mississippi chiming in here.

Such a proposal would necessarily fuck me in the short-term. We all know Mississippi would opt out at first opportunity. I think, though, in the long-term, health care costs in the states with a robust public option would be lower than in areas that rejected such a notion. They would become progressively less competitive in terms of operating costs compared to more liberal states. They would begin losing opportunities to lure new businesses into the area when the alternative in more liberal areas leaves them with lower health care costs.

Economic pressures would inevitably force these backward states, including mine, to reconsider their positions. The alternative is that health care costs will eventually cripple state economies in conservative dominated states, and they will start hemorrhaging jobs and businesses and the talented entrepreneurs who open those businesses. That's my view of it.

[Inuca]

32. Agree n/t

[DevonRex]

51. Exactly. Thank you . nt

[closeupready]

80. They are going to continue raising rates wherever they can - why wouldn't they?

So, yes, I think you're 100% correct.

[CTyankee]

88. Your argument makes sense. But we are not dealing with people who are rational.

We have seen empires fall because people failed to use reason. "The Best and the Brightest" got us further mired in Vietnam. It has happened over and over again in history. Read Barbara Tuchman's "The March of Folly." People can be led by sheer terror of the unknown, the Other, the "socialists", the "communists," the "Nazis." We saw it with the Baggers, at the Town Hall Meetings, people screaming in hate and vitriol over health care reform. You KNOW that this will be the way the RW will play the PO in any state referendum on it. Reason will go out the window very fast...

[madfloridian]

19. All of a sudden people defend Dean when he is wrong...

many people who never defend him when he is right.

I would laugh at the nature of that, but it is not funny.

[Dawgs]

25. Dean is wrong because you say so?

I think I'm allowed to think for myself, but thanks.

I've criticized Dean for many things, but he's most definitely right on this one.

You do realize that he's not FOR this idea?

[madfloridian]

31. He said it is morally wrong but would vote for it. That is VERY wrong.

[MNDemNY]

38. Yup, as WRONG as it gets.

[scheming daemons]

35. madfloridian saying Dean is wrong does not mean that Dean is wrong....

He understands the dynamics here.


Very few states will opt out... and those that do, will see their legislatures and governorships overturned pretty quickly when the stats start coming in showing the opt-out states doing very poorly.


It gets us a Public Option.... and gets rightwing legislatures ousted.



That's a win-win.



And Dean gets it.

[Dawgs]

52. Seems that passion is overriding logic for some.

:hi:

[madfloridian]

59. It is called righteous anger. I am getting off all Dem calling lists.

Hubby and I worked our butts since 2003. It has gotten us nothing but more caving to make the GOP happy.

[scheming daemons]

69. Maybe just move to a reliably blue state?

Vote with your feet...

[MNDemNY]

90. Fabulous option.

[Generator]

191. Yep the real "public option"

is to move to driving distance of Mexico. Health care 60% off and margaritas too!

[Inuca]

58. Yep! n/t

[CTyankee]

97. I want to believe this but I'm just envisioning the blitz of advertising before a red state

referendum. Scary, completely misleading stats from the blue states, the kind of stuff we see now about Canada and Great Britain. Southern states already hate the yankees, but this will be Hate on Steroids.

I totally agree with those who say the red states will lose their best workers and best minds, who will vote with their feet and move to a blue state. But that is already and has already happened to some extent. The red states will be wastelands but there will be innocent people left behind and helpless, just as many African Americans were left to suffer until we really got serious about federal Civil Right legislation, backed up with federal marshals carrying guns.

[WildEyedLiberal]

20. I agree - an opt-out is morally indefensible

What's even worse are the people who defend it because they're getting some kind of sick schadenfreude kick out of the thought of "red states" opting out and suffering because of the idiocy of their Republican rulers. I want health care for ALL - even if that means covering the town hall birther fools who rage against the very thing that could end up saving their lives. The idea that "red states" are monolithic blocs of right-wing fools is ludicrous - there are easily more right-wingers, by sheer number, in California than in Georgia or Mississippi. I'm not willing to condemn poor people to death in "red states" for a cheap "I told you so" political point.

[madfloridian]

23. Right. Dean said it was morally wrong, but he would vote for it.

That would be a terrible burden on red states like mine. The GOP religious right is in total control here.

[Rosco T.]

76. Which is PRECISELY why it needs to be on the table.

How would YOU like to be a 'thuggy running in a state where a 'thuggy controlled government kept you from having access to a workable public option while sticking you with the gouging of private companies?

Better question, how would you like to be a DEM running in that state?

It's the gift that keeps on giving.. and removing 'thuggy control.

[scheming daemons]

87. +10000.... The reactionaries who won't use their higher brain function don't get it...

[WildEyedLiberal]

130. Wow, fuck you. I disagree with playing chess with people's lives so you personally attack me?

Seriously, fuck off. I guess you can go ahead and rationalize thousands of "red staters" (including, without a doubt, liberals who have the misfortune to live in red states) dying in order to provoke a blue renaissance in said states, but I can't.

My "higher brain functioning" is perfectly intact, thank you. So is my moral compass. I "understand" the ploy of the opt-out just fine. I also think it's grossly immoral.

Oh, and I live in a blue state.

[SWr]

192. Someone GETS IT

This is about PEOPLE'S LIVES!!!!

[ecstatic]

146. Love the pic! nt

[madfloridian]

207. I have been called dumb and dumber, now I am a reactionary.

So be it.

[FrenchieCat]

39. Perhaps it will drive Conservatives to vote Democratic......

when they see that they don't get to enjoy what is offered in other states.

Perhaps in a long run, the states being allowed to opt out
will provide large Democratic majorities in states where we haven't seen any.

[scheming daemons]

42. Exactly.... Ironically, the "free market" of ideas will win out

When voters in opt-out states see what they're missing being so successful in the opt-in states... they will revolt.



Within 5 years, there will hardly be any opt-out states left.

[and-justice-for-all]

40. "state opt out for public option"??! FAIL..nt

[ecstatic]

47. If the alternative is no public option, then I think the state option is good

Local pro-public option groups in states need to organize NOW and start a media campaign that puts pressure on the governors to opt-in. If not, the next set of elections should be a cake walk.

[laughingliberal]

65. I like it better than no public option or an opt in plan

I would prefer a single payer or a very strong public option with no ambiguity. That said, if the states must affirmatively opt out (and I hope by referendum) I believe there is a chance it will survive in most states. If it is left up to legislatures, not so much.

[madfloridian]

70. Please note how we dissenters are said not to "understand".

Typical ploy to keep the passionate left in the party discredited.

Oh, yeh, I understand. I understand we are selling out and not using the majority.

People in FL are still suffering because our ideologues did not take the unemployment stimulus.

So don't talk to me about opting out of health care reform.

[BlooInBloo]

78. Very simple reverse-psychology, for very simple Americans...

We can see it working on DU, for example.

:rofl:

Start: "OMG! This healthcare reform is the worst thing EVAR!!! It's only a giveaway to corporations!!!"

Red state opt-out proposal is made

End: "OMG! I can't believe they're gonna leave us out! We want in! This is immoral!!!!"


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[MNDemNY]

81. STFU and get in line, the "chess" game is almost over, donchyaknow.

"He" will give us what we need, he knows best, we know nothing.

[scheming daemons]

83. VOTE WITH YOUR FEET... move out of Florida... take your dollars elsewhere

Move to where the people are enlightened.



Or..... if you want to stay in Florida.... WORK TO OUST THE RIGHTWINGERS THAT RUN YOUR STATE.

[Altoid_Cyclist]

94. I touched on the subject with post #15, but I wanted to add one thing.

If even one state opts out for one or two years, that's still going to cause needless deaths that are tantamount to manslaughter.

It might work out the way that people say it will in the long term, but the ones that die before that won't have any reprieve and that's just wrong.

[SPedigrees]

100. And if you have NO PLAN, think how many more will die. nt

[Altoid_Cyclist]

118. I agree on that point.

I'm just trying to point out that the Democratic leaders took a stance of weakness from the very beginning of this whole debate.

The longer that this drags out, it just seems to get watered down at every turn because too many pols. on both sides of the aisle are being funded by the insurance companies.

I just think that if we had started on the offensive from the beginning then maybe we could have had some kind of coverage for everyone from day one regardless of where they live.

[laughingliberal]

128. True, the debate was handled badly from the get go. However,

I see momentum lately on the side of public option. In the middle of August, I didn't see much chance of any reform and little chance of anything beyond a mandate on American citizens to purchase overpriced crap from private, corporate blood suckers. Remember? All the Blue Dogs were spewing their corporate crap and dressing it up as representing their constituents. Co-ops and triggers were masquerading as 'viable' alternatives. Now, polls are clear that people aren't buying it and I see them scrambling to try to appear as if they want to come up with a public option cause their covers are being pulled.

[Altoid_Cyclist]

140. The signs lately are more encouraging which is one of the few bright spots in this debate so far.

I'm just looking at it on a day that the mail included two more bills from collection agencies. My wife and I both have coverage which is lucky since I've been unemployed for 18 months as of next week. Despite having coverage, we still owe medical providers money that is into 5 figures.

When I see what it's like in Germany, it just pisses me off that this country has always been more interested in making money with the MIC than it is in taking care of its' citizens. My BIL in Germany had surgery a few months ago which included almost two months in the hospital. The total bill for the surgery, skin grafts and hospital stay was less than having one test done in this country.

I'm hoping that people like Sen. Casey have a large say in whatever is in the final product, but it didn't have to be this way. This country has just become too much of a war machine instead of using its' assets for just causes like universal health care.

[Dawgs]

135. That's why everyone is against it. But not passing a bill because of it causes more death.

A lot more death.

I think that is what most of us are arguing here.

[Altoid_Cyclist]

145. That's my point. I'm not saying that I want it to be all or nothing.

See my post #140 and you'll see why this isn't the best day for me to be dicussing HCR. I'm just upset that we're discussing any munber of deaths as being acceptable.

This country never should have let it get to this point. That's what has me more upset than anything. I'm not trying to make this personal with anyone here. I want to make it personal with the people in government and big business who have blocked reform over the years.

[anonymous171]

168. THIS IS NOT ABOUT YOU OR ANY LIBERALS IN RED STATES

It is about the republicans in red states that continually vote against their best interests. This may force them to start voting for a party that has their back.

[madfloridian]

169. Yes, it is about me.

[WyLoochka]

74. My state is about the reddest of the red

And I strongly support this state opt-out.

Our lege, and maybe even the people by referendum, would opt-out and then our people will sit here in misery watching the blue state people being taken care of while costs and premiums go down in those "in" blue states.

The upshot will be that the people here will realize their mistake and will demand to opt back in. Or people will move to civilized states. And perhaps businesses will move to states with lower health care costs.

It won't take long before the opt-outs are clamoring to opt-in. Some people just have to learn lessons the hard way. People want to keep voting for right wing loons? Maybe they need to live with their choices for awhile before they can come to their senses.

Blue states should not keep rescuing red states from their bad choice predicaments.

[ProSense]

86. "I would like to see that come out of the Senate because it is a real public plan,"

...he said of the opt-out compromise. "Then they can negotiate it (with the House) in conference committee... And if this passes I won't say it is not reform because it is reform."

Obviously, Dean believes this is real reform.

[nadinbrzezinski]

91. If the red states op out they could face consequences

also he is looking at this the same way I am.

We have gone from NO WAY we will get a PO... to one that is strong with an OPT OUT, not OPT IN option.

Opting out is more difficult than opting in.

And yes some states WILL opt out... we need to maintain a caste system in America.

[rudy23]

102. What kind of consequences is Jindal paying for refusing badly needed stimulus money?

His constituents love it.

The teabaggers and birthers will LOVE GOP governors who opt out of the public option in the name of almighty Reaganomics.

Don't keep MORE liberals out of New Orleans who have to move because of their governor's commitment to anti-government talking points.

[CTyankee]

111. Sadly, I think you are right. nt

[Inuca]

122. He DID accept stimuls money

I don't know if all, but he most certainly is handing out stimuls $s in LA

[ProSense]

125. Jindal talks a lot of shit, but Lousiana is taking stimulus funds:

www.stimulus.la.gov, more

[nadinbrzezinski]

143. Have we had elections in the last year or so?

No, we have not.

Yes there is a core that will applaud him, but at this point it also means people of the liberal persuasion need to organize on the ground.

That said, you are talking one of those states that rely on the caste system.

[rudy23]

148. We have approval ratings--Jindal is unfazed. Also, which liberals would organize to vote him out?

You're asking a whole lot from us liberals in red states. We can't move mountains--that far anyway.

[Tom Rinaldo]

95. I think the "opt out" proposal has merit

There are five possible scenarios for health care reform in front of us that I see:

A) Congress has the courage and ability to pass sweeping reform with a meaningful robust public option available in all states.

B) Congress is unable to pass legislation as described in Choice A for whatever combination of political reasons and settles for something without a public option (maybe coops or some kind of trigger) instead.

C) Congress is unable to pass legislation as described in Choice A for whatever combination of political reasons and settles either for something that allows individual states to create their own public option if they want to, or settles for a very limited meek national public option for all states.

D) Democrats are unable to get the votes needed to pass Choice A as described above and therefor it abandons most if not all of the reform package, with a plan to either return to it at some future date or to instead pass piecemeal legislation as urged to by Republicans.

E) Congress is unable to pass legislation as described in Choice A for whatever combination of political reasons and instead creates a robust national public option but allows individual states to opt our of it.

I would argue that Choices A and E (in that order) are the only acceptable ones. I think Choices C and D are dangerous to the chances of any meaningful public option happening for at least ten years. They would run a great risk of either 1) we would never get a real public option because the "trigger" gets rigged in a way in which it would never get "pulled" or 2) the public option(s) that do emerge are badly watered down and compromised (in order to win "blue dog" votes) and as a result misrepresent what a true robust non-privately run health insurance plan is capable of delivering, thereby discrediting the entire concept.

Of course Choice A is much better than Choice E. But IMO Choice E (the opt our compromise) is much better than either settling for less or failing to move forward with national reform in this Congress. Here is why.

It gives Blue Dogs political cover by allowing them to tell their voters that they made sure their state won't be forced to accept some federally designed public plan if they don't want it. Then those Senators can vote to let a real national public option be created. That may be what is needed to avoid Choices B, C, or D. I already briefly stated why I think Choice B and C are poor and/or unacceptable. If we can't win Choice A then Choice E would be far superior to ending this session of Congress without finally securing a real national public option for health care insurance, even if that means accepting a State opt out provision. Like I said above, if Congress backs away from real reform now I have virtually no hope that they will do a better job at it in any future session for at least the next decade, and I can elaborate on my reasons for saying so if you like.

However if instead of getting either nothing, or some watered down national public option compromise, we go with the individual state opt out compromise that established a real robust public option plan for those states that don't opt out, here is what I foresee happening. The voters in many of the states now being misrepresented by "blue dog type" Senators - and Joe Lieberman comes to mind here, will not allow their state to opt out - they will choose to be included over the heads of their Senators. Granted some states will "opt out" anyway, but that won't last very long because a genuine strong public option operating in the vast majority of states will, again in my opinion, soon prove why we are fighting so hard for it now in the first place; it will deliver for consumers. Once that becomes widely apparent I expect those politician who would opt out of the public option now to either change their tune or be replaced. The end result will be a much better health care system for residents in every state in less than a decades time. If we can't pull off Choice A, Choice E is quickest way to get there from here.

[CTyankee]

117. I would agree that your option E does gain us a lot of ground.

And it is easy for me, living in CT. And your prognosis may come true, but I don't think it is going to be quite that simple. The RW can hold onto irrationality for a very long time, even with hardships. Look at what has happened in this country ever since universal health care was first envisioned. FDR, HST, LBJ, Clinton...LBJ had to give up after getting Medicare and Medicaid.

I hope you are right, but please understand that your estimation of how long it would take for red states to turn around on this thing could be way off...

[The Magistrate]

131. An Excellent Analysis, Sir!

A pleasure to see you about the place.

[laughingliberal]

141. Love the way you laid it out. This is how I see it, also

We would all prefer option 'A' but 'E' is a close 2nd.

[madfloridian]

158. Why do we have to give in like this?

The polls show the people want it, we have a majority. Why give in to ideologues?

It will hurt people.

[Tom Rinaldo]

161. I really hope we don't have to Mad, I'm with you on that

Maybe we won't. We shouldn't have to. But money speaks loudly in Congress as everywhere else, and the Right has managed to scare a lot of voters, more concentrated in some states than others, to boot with their lies. I am still fighting for "Choice A" all the way, but this isn't a Hollywood movie script where we can simply decide that the good guys win in the end and then write it that way. If enough of us can put enough pressure on enough blue dog Democrats we won't have to give in. That is the bottom line, and I'm all for that. They need to all know they will have to pay a price, as high a price as we can manage, if they break with the Democratic PArty over the public option (in other words Democratic Senators need to vote to close debate regardless of how they vote on the final bill).

But before I would have it any OTHER way, the individual state opt out compromise would meaningfully move the ball forward, for the reasons I wrote of, if all else fails. That is my point, if we don't have enough strength to push through the bill that we need without it. Even people in "opt out" states will be better off sooner with that legislation getting passed than any of the other choices other than us outright winning what we believe in and what polls say people want. I think Dean sees it that way.

[madfloridian]

164. We will pay for it in 2010. They won't blame the GOP, trust me.

[rudy23]

99. Why would a GOP pol hesitate to opt out?

Because it hurts their constituents? Because that in turn would cause voters to drum them out of office?

Have these guys been paying attention to red state politics for the last 30 years?

[madfloridian]

108. Our state opted out of the unemployment stimulus for extended payments.

No one has spoken up yet in outrage. The media has not covered it. The ones who are suffering by losing unemployment don't know who to be angry with.

It would be the same if FL opts out of the public option.

They will neither know nor care.

It amazes me how dumb I am considered when I expect Democrats to do the right thing.

:eyes:

[ProSense]

114. This is Florida's stimulus site

link

[madfloridian]

123. I will look up the info when I get back home.

I know what I am talking about.

It is the extended stimulus of around 450 million.

Later.

[madfloridian]

151. This link...

should explain what Florida left on the table. No one is yelling out about it, few even care.

From August

Florida is 51st in stimulus spending....dead last.

Kendrick Meek is the only one I have seen speaking out about it. He is running for senator as a D.

“During the legislative session, absent any leadership or direction from the Governor, the Republican-controlled state House and state Senate refused to make the legislative fixes required to allow Florida to draw down $444 million to extend unemployment benefits for the now nearly 11 percent jobless Floridians. Money that was due to my state was left on the table in Washington because of inaction in Tallahassee."

[ProSense]

153. That's a different issue from them opting out. That's poor leadership.

Again, the plan is national.

[madfloridian]

154. What I posted IS that they opted out of unemployment extended stimulus....

and they did not pay a price for it.

I don't get why you think it is just fine and dandy to deprive the people.

[ProSense]

159. The situation is changing, competition is good

That letter gave Meek, the Democratic Senate candidate, an opening and the northern Miami congressman pounced.

“It was easy for the governor to stand on stage in (Fort) Myers with President Obama in February in support of the stimulus, but now the work begins and Florida is late in rolling up its sleeves to take advantage of these limited funds,” Meek said in an Aug. 10 statement. “The over 10 percent unemployed Floridians and the 3,500 Floridians who are losing their health care every week don’t have time to spare.”

Meek, who announced his candidacy in January, also criticized Crist for dragging his feet on scooping up Florida’s share of stimulus dollars for education and unemployment benefits.

A Crist aide who oversees stimulus spending in Florida and the state’s transportation secretary sent a joint letter to Oberstar contesting the original assessment, and a new ranking published by the House committee earlier this month indicated that Florida had climbed up in the rankings to 34th among all states in doling out highway money.

Several transportation policy experts in Florida interviewed by POLITICO said that although the state was slower than others to spend highway dollars, the approach made sense.

They pointed out that, unlike other states, Florida didn’t use a lot of its stimulus money on projects that were already funded or on short-term needs like repaving roads and filling potholes. Instead, the state focused on such longer-term projects as widening highways that take more time to get off the ground.

link

You want to believe that it will be politically easy for an asshole governor to just opt out, but there are multiple layers of government and public pressure at play. Opting out may not even be that easy or feasible, as most states probably found with Medicaid.

[madfloridian]

163. So now you are defending Crist and FL Republicans.

They still left 440 million on the table for the extra unemployment, yet you are defending them so you can accept this sell out.

Oh, well.

You keep changing the subject and defending whatever the Democrats do.

[ProSense]

171. WTF? n/t

[madfloridian]

172. Exactly my point. Why are you making a case for them?

[rudy23]

149. The implied retort to that is "F*ck Florida." That's what I don't like about this plan.

I see a whole lot of blue staters telling a whole bunch of red staters they should have to pick up and move, as punishment for the sins of their fellow red state inhabitants.

[ProSense]

109. Comparison to Medicaid

here.

[Odin2005]

126. No, it's the opposite. Pukes that decide to opt out will be thrown out of office.

[rudy23]

160. By whom? Their teabagger constituents who reward their anti-government rhetoric?

Why would that start happening? Why would there be red states in the first place if that were the case?

[madfloridian]

165. Exactly my point. They can opt-out and suffer nothing from it.

This is a very bad idea.

[spaten]

132. Will mandates be opt-out?

no chance.
Just put a damn public option for everyone in there.

[BlooInBloo]

150. (shrug) Red states have whined for "states' rights" for a hundred years. Now they might get them.

[moondust]

152. I would anticipate a mass migration.

From states that opt out of a public option to states that opt in.

I have wondered for some time if this isn't largely a plot by mainly red states to get rid of many of their poor, sick, unemployed and underemployed residents (anyone who cannot afford or is denied private insurance) by encouraging them to move to a state that does offer a public option. That would also likely "rid" them of a lot of Democratic voters and thus solidify the right wing stranglehold on those states.

I hope I'm wrong.

[madfloridian]

155. Why does our party feel the need to do this? Fear of the right wing?

Fear of corporations?

We give in and accept things so easily now.

[MNDemNY]

157. Trying to find a way to spoon feed us this already(before this proposal) crappy reform.

"We" have already compromised too much. When, yes I said when, we give into this, it will be on to the next compromise, then the next..............We are likely to be left with little more than discounted aspirin, for some.(at a cost of a trillion dollars).

[madfloridian]

173. Read the post by Time for Change. All groups support the public option

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Time%20for%20change/512

So we are caving in to the right wing base.

:shrug:

My post has gone from 8 recs down to 5 in just a few minutes.

I guess DU now supports state opt-out.

[MNDemNY]

180. Many support ANY bill that Obama can sign and claim a win.

[ipaint]

162. Rabid repubs in blue state get a public option

but democrats in majority red states must suffer until their terminally selfish neighbors find their compassionate gene.
Democrats go without, risk death, for the good of the country of course. Is their a medal or some kind of recognition for making this sacrifice solely because we have an impotent bought off congress put there ironically by soon to have a public option blue state democrats.

Terrific plan. I'm glad it's going to work for the chosen enlightened ones. But your creating a monster in the new world according to beck that will be created in red states as a result of abandoning good people to appease a lousy bunch of bought off rich legislators.

Dean is doing exactly what I expected.

[JVS]

166. Hmm. I get nothing because of how these people vote vs. they get nothing because of how they vote

FUCK EM!

[anonymous171]

167. Too bad. Working class conservatives need to feel the consequences of voting republican.

[ipaint]

174. Alot of them also voted for the democrats blocking real health care reform in blue states.

What's their punishment?

[anonymous171]

175. Same thing. nt

[ipaint]

179. So folks who voted for baucus don't get the public option either?

[madville]

176. Maybe Dean knows something we don't

Maybe it isn't a bad idea for a state to be able to opt-out just in case the plan that comes out of Congress makes things worse.

Mandated private for profit insurance at outrageous rates, a crappy public option with high deductibles, co-pays and premiums or no public option at all. People start getting penalized by the IRS on their taxes because they can't afford $12,000 a year for family coverage. If health care reform takes a nose dive and people hate it, their state politicians would be considered heroes for relieving or saving them from it, could benefit either party at the state level depending how it is played.

I hope and want it to be great of course but it may be good to put a backdoor in.

[madfloridian]

177. We will accept anything the party leaders decide to give us...

and we will smile while they do it.

We will pretend whatever they do is some clever ruse to get the votes.

Most of DU appears to think it is a grand idea to let states opt out.

That scares me.

It angers me that Dean sold out, it scares me that Democrats are so accepting now.

[madfloridian]

181. Down down ever downward.

Making sure it is clear that we will accept whatever they do.

[madfloridian]

184. And now down to 4.

The message is indeed clear now.

[madfloridian]

194. Down to 2. Very clear message where DU stands.

Clear indeed.

They can push anything and we will accept it.

[madfloridian]

204. Down to 1, let's try for 0 or

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

183. The subsidies would be unaffected. The PO would be, what? 5-10% cheaper?

States that opted out would still have an insurance exchange. The subsidies for low income folks would remain.

It's not like being in an opt-out state (which I think would be zero states anyway) would be a death sentence.

We are not talking about opting out of the entire bill, only talking about some people maybe being unable to get a modestly better plan that most people wouldn't be able to get anyway.

The strongest House bill still has only 10 million in the PO by 2019.

[madfloridian]

185. Then this would enrich the insurance companies. Yet DU approves of it greatly.

:hi:

Go figure.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

189. The whole plan does that

I have all sorts of problems with the way things are shaping up.

But within a set of practical assumptions (that may be wrong), if a state opt-out were the difference between some national PO and no national PO then it would be a good trade.

But it sucks, of course. A lot of what will go down sucks.

Anything short of single payer is, IMO, 90% circle-jerk.

[madfloridian]

196. And we cheer.

[Warren Stupidity]

219. Cheer? While perhaps a muted cheer.

I don't think any of use here view the bills in the house and the senate as the best we could do, but many of us are old enough to remember 93, and the 16 year hiatus that followed that failure to do anything, and believe that we need to move forward with reform that paves the way for medicare for all, even if it doesn't even go half way.

[RainDog]

188. when people don't want to move to those states to work...

when people who work there decide to move elsewhere because of their asshole politicians...

then those states will suffer from brain drain and they will have to decide to join the 21st century to recruit talent to work there.

this situation is already the case at the city level across the nation - Richard Florida has written about the places that are liberal - that embrace multi-culti, etc. - those are the places where college-educated young people want to live.

so, the pols are willing to turn their states over to old white farts close to retirement rather than create an environment that lures talent and brains?

people will turn on them or leave. those states will end up looking like detroit in the future.

[DireStrike]

197. Sounds like Dean has his priorities in order

This might work in the long run. It is indeed better than nothing. But it is not as good as a real public option.

[madfloridian]

198. Hell's bells. We can't get a REAL public option without a majority.

:sarcasm:

[madfloridian]

199. Let's get this down to 0 or

A real stand.

[Generator]

200. Surely this means Rahm will nix it

If Dean's for it, Rahm no likey.

So is the idea that the public option in the very limited form for the poorest and most un-insurable (3% minus the South-I guess that brings it down to half a percetnage public option) will be so wondrous that every state will fall in love with it, and the people will rise up! and demand a public option? But as I understand it-the "public option" is only for those that have no jobs. If you ever have a damn job you have to buy whatever insurance at whatever cost they offer.(THANKS OBAMA! )

Explain to me why it's even public-it's only if you are indigent or are so sick you can't get insurance now. (not that I begrudge the poor that-I think it should be free anyway)

Why is this going to revolutionize everything? The mad as hell docs think that it will SINK any future reform for real medicare for all-because it is only going to cover the poorest and most uninsurable.

[Barack_America]

205. By 2013 Obama will be reelected and the GOP will no longer care.

Much of the town hall protesters anger has little to do with health care but much to do with a desire to defeat Obama.

That will be irrelevant by 2013.

Florida Dems also have until 2013 to come up with a contingency plan.

[flvegan]

210. Mistake number one: thinking any of them give a shit about us.

Outside of the handful of congressfolk that have any sort of consideration for the end result of their decision, they have theirs and their concern is in how their vote will help/hurt their fundraising efforts next time around.

I'm so used to being under the bus, I've forgotten what it's like to not be here.

Oh, and pleading with DUers as a Floridian? Good luck with that. Far FAR too many stupid douchebags here to try anything with that angle, no matter how valid.

[unkachuck]

211. K&R....I'm with you, MF, we're all in this together....the Good Doctor has this one wrong....n/t

[Juche]

213. Dean is from Vermont, so its easy for him to support this

I live in Indiana. And what of all the people in other deep red states that will deny their citizens the public option merely out of spite and political gamesmanship?

[madfloridian]

214. Salon says ""Liberals get their public option....which will make the base happy"

This article by Alex Coppelman makes me feel like someone just played us. Like "oh looky we can do this to get the liberals on board..if Dean says ok the progressives will follow."

I am in no mood for an article like this right now. I realize the Kos bloggers are already all on board with the opt out...I realize DU is already on board with it.

I don't want to think that Dean is supporting it to get the liberals on board.

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2009/10/08/opt_out

"So far, the reaction to the idea has been fairly enthusiastic, even from staunch supporters of the public option like former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean. Dean's say-so is enough for many progressives, and likely means that the liberal wing of the Democratic Party will accept the compromise, even if they do so grudgingly.

What a condescending statement, like we are not thinkers.

On the other side of the Democratic Party, too, there are some signs that Schumer's compromise could be acceptable. Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., a fairly conservative Democrat who's been at the center of the legislative process as he tried to work out a deal that could win some Republican votes, would at least consider voting for this plan, an aide told Greg Sargent.

We won't know for a little while if this compromise is going to go anywhere or whether it was just a momentary fad. But it certainly has potential, at least politically.

Liberals get their public option, first of all, which will make the base happy and give the administration and many congressional Democrats a big win. There's still the chance some states will choose to opt out, of course, but even that might go liberals' way. There might be too much pressure -- and too much money -- working against an opt-out decision, the same way that even the most conservative states ended up accepting the lion's share of the money they were entitled to as a result of the stimulus. (And with all the anger towards conservatives over the tenor of the reform debate, the Democratic base might not mind if a few red states do end up opting out.)

Moderate and conservative Democrats, meanwhile, will get some political cover, the chance to say they fought hard against a public option and ended up winning individual states the right to choose.

That's it in a nutshell. Cover for the Conservadems.

Giving states the right not to give a health care to their people.

Why are we cheering? Whatever happened to using your majority to do what is right.

Come on now let's get this down to <0

[madfloridian]

215. DU apparently supports rights of states not to give good health care to their people.

I never cease to be surprised.

Daily Kos bloggers also seem to see it as a needed political gesture.

I think then why do we work so hard for a majority?

[Shagbark Hickory]

216. Opt-out = exit strategy.

There never was going to be nor will there ever be a public option.

[blueworld]

217. Opt-out completely defeats the concept of a Public Option - COST CONTAINMENT

The only real competition to private insurance is a public option. Only this competition will provide REAL cost containment, particularly if we're mandated to purchase insurance.

If the red states can opt-out, they surely will. Then there will not be enough people nationally in the public option to offer any threat or competition to private insurers. How convenient. Premiums will continue to rise, pre-existing conditions will continue to be put in "high-risk" pools with outrageous premiums.

This so-called compromise will kill the entire Health Care Reform effort eventually. I'm sure it was engineered by the lobbyists & I'm angry & sick & tired of chasing my ass around the same BUSH. :grr:

[Warren Stupidity]

218. With a robust public option, this will help your state turn blue.

Nate Silver laid out the stark 'options' here for the Rethuglican Party in red states. They have to explicitly act to opt out and in doing so will receive all the blame for denying their own state residents access to affordable health care.

Dean did not give up fighting for real reform, he acknowledged that if this is the compromise that gets a robust viable public option out of the Senate, it is a compromise worth accepting. I think your fear that many red states will opt out is unfounded. Instead most if not all will opt in, as they all eventually did for stimulus money, because in the end, despite all the bullshit, it just makes sense.

[lumberjack_jeff]

220. Wrong, for several reasons.

a) public policy made for the least common denominator is only a recipe for shared suffering. It may very well be unfair for citizens of Washington to enjoy better health than citizens of Florida, but it is better than your politicians forcing Washingtonians to suffer.
b) few if any states will opt out of a public option. Except for ideology, there's no reason. Offering the public option within the insurance exchange (which they will still be required to allow) doesn't cost anything, and the small and medium sized businesses will strongly lobby to allow it, because excluding it will cost them money.
c) Even in the unlikely event that several states opt to prevent the public option from signing up customers in your state, the competitive forces at work in the rest of the country will suppress prices in yours.
d) Your state won't get the other benefits of HCR if a bill doesn't get passed. The house has been fairly clear that no public option = no deal, and the Senate has been fairly clear that any meaningful form of public option = no deal. They are at an impasse.
e) freed from the need to pander to the moderates, the public option can be as progressive as necessary.

[veganlush]

221. opt out might get it through

..the senate. I doubt many states WOULD opt out, though and yes, it would highlight repugnant obstinacy. .

[Romulox]

222. Just like "right to work" and pro-usury laws, it will hasten a race to the bottom

The corporatists love to pit states against each other. I'm still not convinced (ex?) DLCer Howard Dean is on my side. :hi:

[madfloridian]

223. Asking again. Why does a majority matter at all? We cave to the fools.