Tweet
The Hill is reporting that Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) is looking very carefully at the public option opt-out “compromise”:
“I think there’s one way that could work very well and could pick up some of the moderates,” Rockefeller told reporters. “I’m looking very much now at this opt-out public option.” Under the alternative proposal, the public option would be available nationwide but individual states could decline to participate.
So far, Rockefeller has been one of the strongest defenders of a real public option in the Senate, so his openness to the opt-out is clearly a disappointment. It could be a sign that the idea is gaining some traction in the Senate with Reid likely to make a decision about the public option in the coming days.
I’ve personally have been no fan of the opt-out and have laid out several of the problems with the idea. Primarily, it is people in red states who most need a public option and they are the ones most likely to be denied it with an opt-out.
The nicest thing I can say is Rockefeller did use the phrase “there’s one way that could work very well.” In theory, an opt out could be designed to make it very unlikely a state would opt out. For example, if states that opt out were required to fully reimburse the federal government for the resulting increase in cost, I doubt many would. Given what I know about Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats, however, I’m not holding my breath on that.
I suspect any opt-out compromise Reid would accept would be a weak public option with a very easy opt-out. The result would be hundreds of millions of dollars spent by the insurance industry lobbying to make sure most of the red and purple states opt-out in the next three years–before the public option is even made available. Progressives should be about helping all Americans in need, not just Americans lucky enough to live in blue states. (And even blue states may not be safe with potential Democratic governors like Creigh Deeds.)
9 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
Opt out…who decides to “opt out” Senators, Congress critters, Governors? Who makes that decision?
Since THE PUBLIC IS NOT ALLOWED TO OPT INTO THE PROGRAM, who cares about opting out?
Medicare for All / HR 676: The only real option for the American public
Much as I try, Jon, I simply cannot fully accept your characterization of the people in red states as being “unlucky” to live there. This misses the key point that the citizens of red states as a whole are the ones who elected their idiot Republican legislators, either through complacency (failure to turn out at the polls or to be politically engaged) or by outright hostility to the idea of HCR. I am not interested in punishing red states citizenry, but neither am I willing to allow their complacency/hostility to condemn the public option for everyone. The opt out provision puts those citizens on the spot and if they really DO want the public option, they should start acting like they want it. Under the opt out provision, citizens can mobilize to put pressure on their legislators to stay opted in. I say: it’s about time they do.
No Public Option Opt-Out Contingency Without a Single-Payer Opt-In Contingency
Good trade-off. But still not enough, I think. If the opt-out is agreed to, the PO needs to be strengthened. It needs to be tied to Medicare rates, allowed to use the Medicare providers, and administrative structure, and needs to be open to anyone who wants in. Without that, why agree to an opt-out? Just vote down this travesty of a bill.
Please, someone, tell me where has Jane Hamsher gone? Where is Campaign Silo??? I miss her very direct, cogent analyses.
I see it on this continuum:
(worst to best)
opt-in anything
trigger of any kind
co-ops
state based PO
weak national PO, such as schumer’s negotiated rates
national Medicare +5 opt-out
national Medicare +5
I think that’s rational. Maybe you might say trigger is worst of all and I wouldn’t argue hard.
But the key point on that range is that a strong national default with opt out, is a big leap in substantive quality over schumer. Couple it with what IMO is a low opt-out and you have laid an awesome national legacy to your peoeple.
From a strategy level, if Senate can pass a Med+5 with opt out, and the House the same rei
ursement but no opt-out, the opt-out becomes the conference bargaining chip. But the beauty is that allowing opt-out in the Senate is the way to nonetheless get them to agree to the cost numbers and reimbursement rates the House bill already has.
Look at the reality: whatever it is, the senate bill will be weake r
than the House, and the weaker points may well be the likelier ones to survive conference. But imagine a conference where both sides have already passed bills with a Med +5 PO in principle. I would be esctatic.
Jon,
reportage is showing Schumer is humming the same Opt Out tune – wth ?
goody bag ?
another means to squeeze Reid ?
hope we get the 4-1-1 for this particular backstory
Elle, your position is the one I held originally. But after reading a LOT of blogposts and giving it some thought I find it harder and harder to swallow the opt-out. I was particularly moved by the posts of Margaret who lives in a red state probable opt-outer. She has health issues and no insurance and has been working hard for the cause and praying that meaningful reform is enacted. She feels like she is being abandoned by fellow Progs who are willing to go with opt-out. Also, it is simply not feasible for people to just up and leave their jobs, their families, friends, JOBS, a geographical area they know and love, JOBS,to hunt down health insurance in an unknown state. Especially in this rotten economy.
Having said that, I would go for opt out if it were the last resort and especially if all states were forced to have it for a specified amount of time (say, 2 years) before they opted out. I am certain none of them would. Red states can be awfully dumb, but nobody’s THAT stupid.