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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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!!!!

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.

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.