Thanks

Assuming the proposed mandatory honeymoon of two years is part of the plan, Deeds would be out of office before he could make good on what is almost assuredly an empty threat.

It really beffudles me that ordinarily progressives talk about asserting strong principles openly, and not living in fear of what the evil Republicans might threaten to do. For one thing, we urge that toughness because bullies almost always back down, cf Alan Grayson. Yet here is a prime opportunity to get a much stronger bill and dare the GOP to go suicidal and try to reject a public plan–something Republicans have historically threatened–but never once done.

If Reid is allowing a silent filibuster and that’s bad, isn’t dismissing an opt-out because someone might stupidly opt out much the same reaction? Too scared to publicly confront someone who is threatening an adverse action?

No, it’s advocating for people in those states so they won’t have their health care held hostage by Republicans (or, apparently, Democrats). It’s completely immoral for anyone to advocate putting them in that position for political advantage.

The “much stronger bill” is the public option without the opt-out, and it defies all logic to argue otherwise.

Take their f’ing gavels. Yesterday.

Oh, and Schumer for Majority Leader.

Leader Reid does realize that if he doesn’t deliver for ue, the election agenda in 2010 is going to be “Get Reid” doesn’t he? If I were him, I’d want to be as transparent as possible here…

The “much stronger bill” is the public option without the opt-out, and it defies all logic to argue otherwise.

Really, an talking about defying all logic. Where’s the logic in having an opt-out for a program that’s already 100% and opt-in? Everyone can already opt-out if they want to. Don’t purchase the PO plan. This is insane.

call it a Super Duper Double Opt-Out? ;-)

Seriously, if this somehow really moves forward with the opt out I hope somebody builds in a provision to allow the Treasury to recoup the future cost of bailing out those opted out states when they inevitably decide to opt-back in. We’ll end up owning their state houses.

Upfront, I only got to the silent filibuster link, and for the howmanyith time, I asked myself what is a conservadem? It just makes me think of people who care about their label, not their convictions. How it looks is so important, to some. Like the rightwing conservative christologist who wears way too much make up. Men and women.
Back to read.

If you need to appease moderates on both sides then have a public option with the opt-out and the ability to purchase health insurance across state lines.

the problem there will be the issue of taxation, since I presume that the opt-out states will also opt out of any increased revenue requirements. I asked the question here the other day whether anybody thinks that there is any type of opt out will actually work, economically and otherwise. Nobody bothered to answer, and until somebody does, I’m going to continue to presume that there is no such animal. An opt out is a moral hazard/adverse selection and financing nightmare.

That would put it to them, wouldn’t it? Hadn’t thought of that, but, let’s got for the whole loaf now.
Still, you’re thinking outside the box, and I think that is a good thing.

Please, no more Schumer talk. Yes, he has stepped up a little bit for HCR and some other issues, but regarding financial reform, he is nothing but a whore for Wall Street. He practically disappeared during last year’s meltdown. As bad as Frank and Dodd are at times regarding The Street, at least they showed their faces and took some heat. The inability to restructure our financial industry is a huge elephant in the room that could bring down even the best intentions for HCR and climate change legislation. We need a new leader, but not Chuck.

I don’t know what you mean by “both sides.”

There’s only one side negotiating, and it’s hellbent on negotiating with itself it seems.

Tax from which state? My state has the largest state tax, or up there, anyway.
It would be the capitalist way to go in that the big insurers would be in real competition. I’m not good with this $$ thing, so I’m just asking.

I’m just saying that I presume that the architecture of any opt-out will allow the state opting out not to contribute toward any new taxes that result from the reform package. So if we then allow their citizens to buy into the PO from across state lines then we are creating moral hazard with respect to taxation, since their residents will be able to benefit without paying for it… and those same citizens may only cross state lines to buy into the PO once they have a medical need for services – yet more adverse selection. Just one more reason why the opt out doesn’t work. Well, at least in the absence of a wall…

This is Leader Reid demonstrating once again, in case you missed his bad counting on the Doc Fix earlier this week, that he is a horrible Majority Leader and therefore can’t be faulted.

Lowered Expectations.

After the last 5 years of Leader Reid, I’m really not sure how much lower those expectations can get ;-)

If an opt-out allowed for a Medicare + 5 plan, I could live with it. Few states would last long as holdouts and it would bring the difference between defenders of the status quo and reformers into stark relief. It is a weird provision however, in light of the fact that states will have no fiscal responsibility for any public plan, unlike say Medicaid, where program costs are split. It is pure ideology. The biggest drawback would be the collateral damage imposed upon residents of the few states that would are opt out. They would have to wait a few potentially painful years longer.

Over at DailyKos, scuttlebutt is that The Politico deliberately and untruthfully poor-mouthing a robust PO’s chances in order to con Pelosi into backing away from it.

sometimes I really feel we’re living in some weird version of pre-Glasnost Russia.. what with all the high stakes intrigue and Krelim watching that goes on these days.

1st point, if this is a federal bill, I would think all states would pay.
2nd point, once people have a need, it’s too late to buy in, or am I wrong?
No walls. No borders. No fences.
If this is going to be a US Federal plan, it has to be for everyone. No Opt-Out plan. See, I live in CA where we have the govenator.
Is it a group of states or a united states?

Jane weighed in

we’re saying the same thing. IMO the opt out simply won’t work.

What the right is pushing for is basically states rights and devolution of powers. The point is that the opt-out states won’t want to pay.. otherwise, why push to be able to opt-out to begin with?

I think with the no-denial for existing conditions requirement, it won’t be too late for sick people to buy in. They’d still be able to do so.

There is no easy way to do an opt-out… unless those states just go away. And I don’t mean just with respect to healthcare.

It’s been a long morning of he said, she said. Thank you for this link.
You rock, PW.

Below is a post from TPM. Apologies if another commenter has put it up.

Soty is ‘that’s odd’ If it’s true a better title would be ‘that’s stupid’ or ‘that is BS’, or ‘WH R jackasses’

That’s Odd
Harry Reid is apparently pretty close to lining up 60 votes for a Public Option with opt-out clause.

But the White House is trying to shut down his efforts. They want Snowe on board.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/10/thats_odd.php?ref=fpblg

Hmm ! Who to believe ? Opt out opt in , triggers
I guess we’ll just have to wait and see what we get

In all honesty, it might be immoral, but these are voters who put republics (and republics disguised as Dems) in office.

I cannot for the life of me understand why, for example, Arizona voters put McCain back in office over and over and over. He’s anti-public-option, and Anthony Weiner revealed yesterday that McCain opted for Medicare, the public option, for himself. McCain is a slimy worm (no disrespect intended to worms).

And voters get what they deserve.

There is going to be a public option, and if it takes an opt-out to seal the deal, so be it.

And I hope that when it becomes final, Reid gets a few kudos from the people here who have relentlessly blasted everything he does.

no triggers, certainly, I would hope.. and hopefully Dems won’t accept one. I really don’t think an opt-out will work, but that probably won’t stop them from tryin’.. ‘course its still an open question whether any state will actually opt out in the end. Nobody wound up refusing stimulus funding, after all…

Oh, I agree that you and I are on the same page, and just being inquiring. No feud, at all.
otherwise, why push to be able to opt-out to begin with?
I’ve come to be distrustful of what I don’t know. I’m not sure what all is in each and every agenda, amendment, etc. There might be backdoor money, or other opportunities, ie. money from state only insurers to push for the opt out. They certainly wouldn’t do it for purely for-the-good-of-people means. Would they?

“Crossing fingers”

Still holding out for that Public Option ,no triggers ,no opt out no BS

I am OK with an opt out (though not a trigger) depending on how it is crafted. If the public option runs for two years before Republicans can try to kill it off at the state level it will be very hard to get rid of. There will be serious resistence even in Oklahoma and Alabama and those state governments that do manage to kill it may well find that they just committed political suicide.

umm…

question.
isn’t it true that people are entitled to “equal protection under the law”?
wouldn’t an opt-out violate that very protection?

Political Suicide? Spell that out for me. Try going on a secrect hiatus with your out of country mistress and then come back to the same old same old. Just saying. They can get away with Anything.

That is what I was trying to say. Thank you.

TPM – Sources: White House Pushing Back Against Senate Public Option Opt Out Compromise

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/sources-white-house-pushing-back-against-senate-public-option-opt-out-compromise.php?ref=fpblg

My question , if only a few people 10 % are eligible for the PO will that create a large enough group to put any real pressure ie competition on the insurance companies?
And my 2nd question is;if it’s limited to only a few people how does that create competition? I thought the idea of a public option was that any one could choose it . If you didn’t like your employer based coverage you could choose the PO. The competition comes from the ability to choose , but the public option I’ve been hearing about would exclude 90 % of the population

I love the “one or two”. What it really means is that one of the senators (either Ben-Ben or Senator Wellpoint) will *only* filibuster of one other senator (Blanche or Mary) wears the pants in the relationship.

Ben-Ben doesn’t want to go it alone, and one gets the feeling that Sen Wellpoint (D-IN) wouldn’t even feel safe going in with just one. He’s the type that needs a Gang around him before he stops shrivling up.

Which means it’s either Blanche or Mary who is talking about filibustering. Which in the case of Blance is what we’ve always figured. The only question about her is whether her Retirement Package was big enough for her to throw in the towel on re-election. I’ve always worried: yes it is. She can do so much “good” for Big Health, Big Energy and Wal-Mart in the balance of her term that the “lobbying” or “executive” position they have waiting for her is so rich that she just says, “Fuck it” and doesn’t care about caucusing unless bills are watered down to her masters desires.

So…

It’s really one. And Harry isn’t willing to expose her, and her weak kneed partern who won’t go it alone.

I think Jane has been right: what Harry is going to find is that it will cost him his job. Then again, Harry may also be working on a Retirement Package as well. When we’re talking about industries that are throwing millions of dollars a *day* to shape legislation, what’s a few million in lobying and executive jobs to “retired Senators”.

John

Jane @3–so by the same token, the stimulus bill–which had a legislative opt-out, essentially, was an immoral bill? They should have watered it down until no one in any GOP state would threaten to deprive their citizens of the money? And it’s not being done for political advantage; it’s for POLICY advantage. It yields a better bill. If your choice is Baucus vs HELP w/
opt out, why would you take Baucus? That’s the implication, that upgrading the PO isn’t worth listening to empty threats for a
while.

Brendan @32–the bill offers the same plan to everyone in the country. No equal protection argument can be made. In the unprecedented event a state would actually opt out; they would surely do so for the whole state. Again, no 14thAmd. issue.

Demi@33–people don’t care so much about congressional private lives. They DO care about public services, however. What explains that better than “keep the government out of Medicare!” they think they hate government, but they hate having a federal social program taken away even more.

Harry Reid is apparently pretty close to lining up 60 votes for a Public Option with opt-out clause.

But the White House is trying to shut down his efforts. They want Snowe on board.

yikes!

would it be too cynical of me to suspect that obamaco would prefer a trigger in order to have something to hold over ahip and their donations for his re-election in 2012?

i still think obama will have to have to accept some kind of weakling po in order for everyone to be able to declare “victory!” … but everytime i read a story like your tpm link, i start to have doubts again.

p.s. a big “welcome back” to jane.

Here’s the ‘push’ behind ‘one or two,etc: “White House Pushing Back Against Senate Public Option Opt Out Compromise”

“Multiple sources tell TPMDC that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is very close to rounding up 60 members in support of a public option with an opt out clause, and are continuing to push skeptical members. But they also say that the White House is pushing back against the idea, in a bid to retain the support of Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME).

“They’re skeptical of opt out and are generally deferential to the Snowe strategy that involves the trigger,” said one source close to negotiations between the Senate and the White House. “they’re certainly not calming moderate’s concerns on opt out.”

ooppss… apologies. replicated your post, info. I need to read a thread more often.

Opt-out is a good foot in the door for govermment finance in conference.

Once the bills pass the houses, as they go to conference, and what actually ends up on the table comes into sharper focus, the public will become outraged at an individual mandate with a very limited access public option.

That will provide the momentum to expand access towards a Medicare for All model if the pressure is kept on.

I assume that a conference committee is not limited in scope to policies which been put on the table by both bills, that it can craft a compromise out of whole cloth if it wanted to, but at the very least could do things like expand access to the PO so it becomes Medicare for All?

That would likely be a much less robust public option if the opt out is removed. And why should folks on the West Coast and Northeast, MN, WI and so on accept a less robust, if any, public option solely for the purposes of insuring the same weak option is available in the South and Utah? What is so moral about that outcome?

At the end of the day the GOP politicans in the red states will talk a tough game, like they did on renouncing stimulus funding, but they won’t get enough support to opt out. What is important is that the 1) opt out become available after 2013; 2) that its presence in a bill result in the Medicare plus version of the public option; 3) the public option be an option for as many types of insured as possible (employer provided, etc.); and 4) we learn to stop assuming that the more progressive regions of the country must accept watered down legislation to placate right wing lunatics from the South and certain states of the West.

These politicans who many are afraid will advocate opting out probably will. Hell, many already are advocating secession and turning down stimulus funding. I don’t see their arguments actually resulting in their states taking those courses of action.

They certainly wouldn’t do it for purely for-the-good-of-people means. Would they?

scarecrow convinced me that allowing states to opt out would further weaken an already weak po. which means if tx opts out it would affect the viability of the po to the rest of the country (for those who would have access to the exchange).

i’m sure none of our congress critters are trying to further weaken the po? /snark

that said, i’m a big supporter of opt outs for better reform (state based comprehensive universal single payer for example). but opting out of the po without a plan for something better, should imo only be favored if further weakening of an already weak po is the goal.

… thanks to scarecrow, i’m now off the fence on this. state based opt out is completely unacceptable unless the opt out is for a better (more comprehensive, closer to universal) health care plan.

No they cannot opt out of any HCR taxes and they cannot opt out of any mandates. If that seems like punishment for opting out, will that is exactly what it is.

I don’t believe Sanford has faced the voters since he returned from his Argentine Appalachian Trail hike.

Anybody who claims they will filibuster should have to do it in public or admit they were bluffing. If not, all the blame will go to Sen. Reid because we will never know if they would have really filibustered if Sen Reid made them had do it where the whole world could see.

“Is it a group of states or a united states?”

It’s both.

THe low availability rates of the PO we have been hearing is a major problem in my view. I think the opt out will, among other things, enable a PO to be more robust & available to more folks. It enables the progressive supporters to tell the Baucuses, COnrads and GOPers, “what’s the problem? If it doesn’t work for your state opt out.”

Strictly speaking, Deeds said not that he *would* opt out, but that he would *consider* opting out. It was a clumsy and foolish attempt to pander to people who wouldn’t vote for him in a million years.

It’s moot in any case; two weeks from now he’ll be a footnote.

You are right about the moral hazard, but really the tax issue would be the other way: the opt-out states would cost the federal government MORE, because the subsidies would have to pay for the people in these red states to get more expensive policies from private companies, rather than the cheaper public option. So all of us opt-in states would be paying more per capita for them. I just can’t believe we are even talking about this opt out crap; if it is to get Snowe, forget it, if it is to get Baucus, make him filibuster (same for Conrad and Lincoln). I don’t think the White House realizes that if they don’t at least make these people FILIBUSTER in the open, then their credibility with every one is GONE!

OK. So the opt out really is pointless then – just ideological BS that (per Evangeline’s comment in #51) is just going to cost the rest of us money in the end. Which brings me back to my point above – if they insist on going down the opt out road, the Treasury should be able seize back that cost difference from the recalcitrant states. Call it a lien on state tax revenues ;-)… that should be sufficient for Rick Perry to call for secession.

I really don’t see opt-out as the big problem that others do. If the public option is good, it will be wildly popular and to opt-out will be political suicide for any legislator. Sure, they will whine about this or that, but they won’t opt out if it threatens their political viablity. If it is necessary to get a good Bill with a PO passed, where’s the rub?

OK. So the opt out really is pointless then – just ideological BS that (per Evangeline’s comment in #51) is just going to cost the rest of us money in the end.

Opt-out will also save lives in states that do not opt out. What price tag would you put on that?

If it is necessary to get a good Bill with a PO passed, where’s the rub?

Many do not have confidence that their own policies will succeed, and do not have confidence in successfully engaging opponents on the issue in the states.

A trigger bill will be a major hit to Democratic electoral prospects for as far as the eye can see. How does forcing Americans into the arms of insurance companies without a way to control premiums help Democrats get reelected. What will the Democratic response be to electoral outrage when this occurs? Are they thinking Americans won’t know the difference? Incredible!

The progressive response ought to be that no bill is better than a trigger bill, even if it means defeating a health bill. Blame it on the blue dogs and make the next election about health care. Then the poll numbers will show whether the blue dogs really believe that their constituents wouldn’t support a public option.

If that is the Progressive decision, it should also be accompanied by the warning that the health bill will come back, and single payer will be the minimum acceptable bill. Each time these bills come back, the health, drug, hospital, doctor and insurance industries lose a little more ground. Make them pay for not coming to their senses now and accepting the best deal they are going to get – ever.

I kinda agree so long as the opt-out is written in such a way that its use will be extremely unlikely. Like I said, in the end every state accepted stimulus funding despite arseholes like Sanford, Perry, Pawlenty, and Palin.

The rub is the effectiveness of the PO. The more people in the PO, the more effective it will be in holding down costs, both for itself, and forcing the private insurers to hold down costs.

So, if say just 8 states with 40 million in population opt-out, that’s a large junk of potential bodies in the PO.

And don’t fool yourself about them being able to “opt-out” of something wildly popular. First of all, it won’t be wildly popular in bright red states, and second of all, never underestimate the ability of the right wing to get huge numbers of people to vote against their self-interests. They’re expert at it.

There’s no need for an opt-out when every single American already would have the ability to opt-out. Just don’t purchase it. It needs to be framed like this: If you want it, and I don’t, then we’re both fine as written. Why should I have the right to not only opt-out myself, but force you to opt-out too by not giving you the choice? These “opt-out” assholes are actually representing taking away your “choice,” which is ironic since they also at the same time complain that health care reform might take away a person’s right to choose their own doctor, yet they want to take away a person’s right to choose their own insurance policy to purchase.

Ooooohhhhhh,

Ed on The Ed Show just made the same pledge Jane did a couple weeks ago!!!!

If Harry Reid doesn’t get a robust public option through the Senate he is going to work for and donate toward defeating him in 2010.

LOL, LOVE IT!!!!

The progressive response ought to be that no bill is better than a trigger bill, even if it means defeating a health bill.

Nonsense. Depending on the nature of the public option in an opt-out bill, the government would handle health care finance for some tens of millions of Americans who otherwise would not have access to health care, where doing nothing would cover nobody.

Carrie Budoff Brown at Politico just posted at Politico that Sen. Lieberman says he will not filibuster, and Sen. Landrieu all but says it, but she left herself a little room.

Certain states opted out of slavery and some did not.

That worked real well.

Can someone please explain to this lawyer how the citizens of states that opt in would get certain federal rights and the citizens of states that opt out would not get those same federal rights and how this passes for equal protection?

How can we achieve full coverage without really ripping up the social contract by not only requiring individuals to get insurance but by also requiring insurers to take their business. The private insurers have already said they don’t want to insure everyone. Many individuals say the mandate is very undesirable (I believe the word was an ‘abomination’).

With the individual mandate and the drive to insure everyone to make it more possible to bring down costs there is an absolute need for the public option.

PO now!

Letting states opt out takes away the individual choice freedom-loving Libertarians and Liberals and even Republicans say they believe is good.

Let individuals decide.

Opt-out will also save lives in states that do not opt out. What price tag would you put on that?

Lost lives of many sick people in red states who want the public option but will be denied it because a majority of the voters voted to opt out.

Opt out is indefensible.

Opt out is indefensible.

What’s indefensible is what the states which would opt out have done to the rest of us over the past 30 years.

It is not easy to move out of a red state. I did it 20 years ago, it was difficult and rife with uncertainties. Eleven days after I arrived here there was the Loma Prieta quake, which shocked the economy. But if it is important to you, then you’ve got to make actual sacrifices to exercise your right of free travel and move somewhere that matches your political climate. You have options, yet you choose not to exercise them and would then hold many of us back for your choice to remain in a state that is governed by neanderthals. We all make choices, and we must live with the consequences of our choices.