I’ve lived all over the country. I was born and raised in Kentucky and as an adult I have lived in New Hampshire (x2), Michigan, Hawaii, MA, NY (x3), CT (x2), AL, IL, CO, FL (x2), and TX. The people you are so blithely dismissing are not at all dissimilar to the people who are your next door neighbors.

And I have known extreme right wingers in blue states and rabid progressives in the reddest of states. Your willingness, almost eagerness to abandon US citizens because of where they live or work does not speak well of you. In fact, your attitude is reminiscent of nothing but those who say “I’ve got mine, screw you.”

First Edit: And no, I am not saying to blame the Republicans if a state chooses to opt-out. I’m saying blame the Democrats for giving the Republican controlled states that option in the first place.

Second Edit: And the way you use the term “red-state citizens” means you’re missing the key word again. Citizens.

Rather like the dance when Joe Lieberman used a vote for Cloture on Alito then voted against him. The Cloture vote was the important one.

A vote that allows an Opt-Out provision is the important one. If it is in the bill at the end, then it is the Dems fault when the Rs use it because the Dems provided it.

It is not the Dems, with opt out, who are going to exclude anyone, let’s just remember that. If anyone does the excluding, it will be elected Republican leaders, and by extension, the red state citizens who elected them.

Under the proposal, the default position is that all states are in. Theoretically, states would have the right to opt out of the public option part of reform. Again, If any excluding is to happen, it’s not the Dems who are doing it, but ultimately, the voters of the red states. Let’s put the responsibility where it belongs. The beauty of the opt out, in my view, is that few, if any states, when the chips are down, will actually choose to opt out. And further, remember (something many seem to be forgetting!) that red state citizens are not passive victims in all this. They have the ability to launch groundswells of popular voter rage and force their elected officials to keep them opted in–if that’s what they really want.

I DO think that’s what they really want, because opinion polls tell us that Americans in ALL states support a public option. But the problem is that red state citizens (as a whole) are not ACTING like they want it. They are, overall, either politically disengaged OR in ideological opposition to HCR. The opt out will force the citizenry of those red states to decide what they really want and get off their butts if they want the PO.

If opt out will get us the votes for the PO, I think it’s the best thing going. While I strongly believe in the notion that we’re all in this together, being “in it together” doesn’t just mean that we all HAVE the PO in the end, but that we all FIGHT for it, too. And the red state citizens aren’t fighting for it, that’s for sure. And I’ll be damned if I’m going to lose the PO for EVERYONE just because red staters as a whole have allowed their elected Republican leadership to act so appallingly. The opt out provision puts the responsibility on the citizens of those states, where it belongs. It sets up some difficult but crucial battles to come.

No you and those with whom you are arguing have fundamentally different views in that they believe in no pre-emptively negotiating with themselves while you do. This is not good or bad its just one leads to a stronger outcome and one leads to watered down results. Those who are not will to compromise are willing to fight for what they want and therefore rationally the ask to be shown those who would willing tank the PO option by siding with a fillibuster.

There is a saying “you cannot win at the negotiating table that which you are not will to win on the battlefield”, unfortunately Obama forgot this lesson, but those such as Jane seems to still understand it. My only question to Jane is will she take the fight to the King (Rham) or continue to fight only his minions the Blue Dogs? Rham does not know what it means to be poor and not be able to afford healthcare, he only understand winning and like so many politicians he define that which is winning, which in this case is signing a bill, any bill that say healthcare reform.

I agree with Jane and her Firedog squad, Fuck the Opt out, it is unacceptable! But that’s my take and you can take it with a grain of salt since I already have free universal health care.

The opt-out proposal has been criticized because it would leave people behind if states opted out. Right wing rule by those individuals in states which would opt out is what is leaving the rest of the country behind, that is immoral and barbaric conduct. How much longer can we expect for the dwindling conservative enclaves with power amplified by the Senate system to hold back the majority of the country from moving forward?

The Democrats have a winning electoral hand, the best that anyone has had for decades. What is immoral and barbaric is that the Democrats cannot get their shit together to do right by the American people, not that people like me are trying to figure out if their proposals don’t fuck it things up too much if it comes down to that because they always do. When I was 18, I voted for Jimmy Carter, so don’t give me shit about being a right winger.

This novel notion that nobody can make any gains until everyone can make every gain did not work with ENDA when it was tried first and last in 2007 when trans inclusion failed. This bill will not be the last time that health finance policy is visited by congress. Trailing legislation will eventually have to bring tens of millions on board who will not be covered by the most ambitious viable bills.

Until then, under an opt-out policy, the onus is on the democratically electeds in states to make those calls. But this brings forth another question, why is it that so many liberals are unwilling to accept democratic outcomes when they go the other way? Do they feel that when others reject their ideas, that that is the same as them rejecting them personally?

The reason I came by here is that there is a novel direct action component out front and in play, doing what needs to be done to put pressure on electeds to make them do our bidding. Apparently the discussion is not as sophisticated as the direct action. That pressure should not move towards an opt-out at this time, but that should not preclude a discussion of the merits of the policy.

Talking about stuff does not make stuff happen, not talking about stuff does not make stuff not happen.

Would it be introduced into the Baucus bill? Would it be introduced during the process of merging the Finance bill and the HELP bill? Or would it be introduced in conference, when the House and Senate bills are brought together to form the final bill?

Seems like an important distinction, as the earlier it is introduced, the more likely it could be removed before the final bill is put together.

I think the key is to continue emphasizing opposition to it in order to not let it become seen as the compromise that nearly everyone in Congress can accept.

It isn’t acceptable!