Opt-out choice for states could pass

[Catawba]

I'm thinking more and more that the Opt-Out Public Option for states proposed by Sen. Tom Carper, might be the way to go that could pass easily with 60 seats in Congress.

It removes the mandate which is distasteful to everyone. For those states that opt-out, they will have will have to explain to their people why they are not allowed to have access to a public option. I don't think it would take too many election cycles before all states opted-in.

This seems to me like the surest way to get a public option.

Other thoughts on this?

 

[jackalope]

I am starting to favor this approach. I know Olympia will still be pushing hard for the triggered public option. I'm still not clear on what would be included in the plan, that states would then have to choose to opt out of, but if the plan were good, I'd be for the opt-out approach.


(A big bennie would be having to have Republican guvs and legislatures explain to their people why they really should actually pay more than their neighbors in the next state ... )

 

[vvx]

It removes the mandate which is distasteful to everyone. For those states that opt-out, they will have will have to explain to their people why they are not allowed to have access to a public option. I don't think it would take too many election cycles before all states opted-in.

Or if the public option is a failure, the opt-out states can show their briliant foresight. But I agree, it's a good option. It allows the states that want a public option to get one. It allows the states that don't think it will work to sit back and watch how it plays out in other states.

 

[Catawba]

Or if the public option is a failure, the opt-out states can show their briliant foresight. But I agree, it's a good option. It allows the states that want a public option to get one. It allows the states that don't think it will work to sit back and watch how it plays out in other states.

Right, a win/win approach!

 

[Kushinator]

I am always in favor of competition between states in regards to policy. Such a platform should be implemented in basically all aspects of federal oversight (taxation, welfare entitlement, abortion, etc...).

 

[Catawba]

I am always in favor of competition between states in regards to policy. Such a platform should be implemented in basically all aspects of federal oversight (taxation, welfare entitlement, abortion, etc...).

That would be the Libertarian platform you describe there. It is too extreme for the political center which is the majority of voters. That is why it they have never received more that fractional support.

Let's try the public opt-out health care option first. If you are right, and the states that opt-out do better than the states that opt-in, you may have more street cred to build support for the further libertarian ideas.

I'm certainly in favor of the Libertarian platform on military non-intervention.
Most of the center feel that is too extreme too, but I'm with you on that one!

 

[jackalope]

Opt out's getting a boost today, TPM has an article on it. I couldn't decide which 2nd paragraph to clip, so I just clipped one. Check it out tho:

Rockefeller Warms To Public Option Opt Out; So Do Conservative Dems
Brian Beutler | October 21, 2009, 5:43PM

Earlier today, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) told me something somewhat unexpected. "I'm looking very much now at this opt out public option," he said, "not opt in but opt out--so you start out with a public option, and if you don't like it you can opt out....that has a sense of freedom."

more...

Rockefeller Warms To Public Option Opt Out; So Do Conservative Dems | TPMDC

In the house, Pelosi gave the caucus until tonight to decide which option they are coming down in favor of. Hopefully there's some movement/info soon! I'm getting tired of the slogging thru the sand.

 

[Catawba]

Opt out's getting a boost today, TPM has an article on it. I couldn't decide which 2nd paragraph to clip, so I just clipped one. Check it out tho:

In the house, Pelosi gave the caucus until tonight to decide which option they are coming down in favor of. Hopefully there's some movement/info soon! I'm getting tired of the slogging thru the sand.

Real glad to hear this Jack! I see some other big players in the debate have also endorsed the opt-out option.

"This afternoon, Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY)--a very visible public option advocate--said he could back an opt-out clause. "I would accept and would be open to the idea, after the program's up and running a couple years, if a state wants to opt out, if they want to leave 25, 30, 50 thousand of their citizens without that choice," Weiner said. "I dont believe it's gonna happen. So i would accept that kind of an opt-out thing." Rockefeller likewise believes that, once consumers purchase in to the public option, they'll raise hell if their state governments try to take it away from them.

And it's not just public option enthusiasts who are sounding off positively about the concept. Here's what Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) told me earlier this week: "while there's support for public option generally, generically, when you start talking about it specifically as it relates to states being able to opt out or opt in, have their own, the support overwhelmingly goes up to 76 percent."

How could the con's say no to this?

 

[DarkWizard12]

I prefer Opt in. Not Opt out, opt in.

 

[Catawba]

I prefer Opt in. Not Opt out, opt in.

Opt-in is basically what we have now. I don't see that going anywhere.

 

[DarkWizard12]

Opt-in is basically what we have now. I don't see that going anywhere.

How so?

(10 char)

 

[Catawba]

How so?

(10 char)

States have the freedom currently to start their own health care insurance program, a couple have done so.

 

[RedAkston]

States have the freedom currently to start their own health care insurance program, a couple have done so.

And they've been huge failures. Why on earth would we want the federal government (who ****s up everything they touch) to run a health care program? They have proven time and time again that they can't do anything right. I certainly don't want them controlling what my doctor can and can't do, or knowing my health history. It's none of their business, and government shouldn't be getting into any business whatsoever (health care, car companies, banks, etc...).

 

[Catawba]

And they've been huge failures. Why on earth would we want the federal government (who ****s up everything they touch) to run a health care program? They have proven time and time again that they can't do anything right. I certainly don't want them controlling what my doctor can and can't do, or knowing my health history. It's none of their business, and government shouldn't be getting into any business whatsoever (health care, car companies, banks, etc...).

Medicaid and Social Security have been widely successful and helped create the middle class.

Also, what is being discussed in Congress in an alternative to health insurance. No one is proposing government run health care in any form.

I prefer my elected officials (that I can kick out of office) providing an affordable option to a corporation only concerned about their profits of which I have no control.

 

[RedAkston]

Medicaid and Social Security have been widely successful and helped create the middle class.

Also, what is being discussed in Congress in an alternative to health insurance. No one is proposing government run health care in any form.

I prefer my elected officials (that I can kick out of office) providing an affordable option to a corporation only concerned about their profits of which I have no control.

Social Security was intended as insurance, not as a given. Medicaid is seeping like the Titanic from all the fraud taking place. And neither of these helped create the middle class as this existed before their inception.

Any time the government sticks it's nose into private businesses or the free market system - it's a bad thing and usually turns out to be a disaster.

It's a good thing that the majority of Americans disagree with you. Now if our elected officials will only take notice of this and drop the issue.

There are two ways to fix health care - pass TORT reform and de-regulate the insurance industry to where they can do business across state lines. With these two in place, health care costs will drop significantly.

 

[Catawba]

Social Security was intended as insurance, not as a given. Medicaid is seeping like the Titanic from all the fraud taking place. And neither of these helped create the middle class as this existed before their inception.

The only problem with the program is the funds have been mismanaged. Al Gore highlighted this in his campaign. Remember his locked box proposal?

Any time the government sticks it's nose into private businesses or the free market system - it's a bad thing and usually turns out to be a disaster.

I do not see a movement in either major party to do away with Medicaid and Social Security. Can you send me link to documentation of the opposition to these programs?

It's a good thing that the majority of Americans disagree with you. Now if our elected officials will only take notice of this and drop the issue.

The majority agree with me ~
The latest Washington Post/ABC poll shows 57 percent of the American public in favor of a public option, with the numbers going up.

There are two ways to fix health care - pass TORT reform and de-regulate the insurance industry to where they can do business across state lines. With these two in place, health care costs will drop significantly.

I think those are excellent suggestions and should be implemented along with a public option.

 

[Catawba]

Support seems to be building for the Opt-out version.

"How such a system would work is still being debated, according to those with knowledge of the proposal. But theoretically, the "opt-out" approach would start with everyone having access to a public plan. What kind of public plan isn't yet clear. States would then have the right to vote -- either by referendum, legislature, or simply a gubernatorial decree -- to make the option unavailable in their health care exchanges.

"How such a system would work is still being debated, according to those with knowledge of the proposal. But theoretically, the "opt-out" approach would start with everyone having access to a public plan. What kind of public plan isn't yet clear. States would then have the right to vote -- either by referendum, legislature, or simply a gubernatorial decree -- to make the option unavailable in their health care exchanges. For conservative Democrats -- especially those from states with major private health insurance industry interests -- this concession could be key, allowing them to punt a vote on a public plan to local governments. For progressives, it would not be the hardest pill to swallow."


Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/07/dems-discussing-public-op_n_313054.html"]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/07/dems-discussing-public-op_n_313054.html[/URL]

 

[jackalope]

Support seems to be building for the Opt-out version.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/07/dems-discussing-public-op_n_313054.html"]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/07/dems-discussing-public-op_n_313054.html

Thx for posting this, coming back to read it first thing in am!
I am very interested in this.

Heard a blurb at some point tonight that Olympia says no deal to opt out, but if they wrestle the Dems into defeating a filibuster, they won't need her vote. Still wish she would vote for it tho. I'm not sure if she's still favoring a trigger.

Anyway, too tired right now to read, but I'll bb in am to do so. :2wave:

 

[DarkWizard12]

Medicaid and Social Security have been widely successful and helped create the middle class.

yea, that's why they are going bankrupt due to politicians using the savings to fund other programs who, for some reason, are the same politicians that want a a single-payer(and are compromising for a public-option) universal health insurance.

 

[Jerry]

Other thoughts on this?

Obama needs to abandon all notions of UHC in any form and embrace a Capitalist solution beginning with price caps and tax brakes for buying private plans.

Short of that, Obama should resign his office.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

And they've been huge failures. Why on earth would we want the federal government (who ****s up everything they touch) to run a health care program? They have proven time and time again that they can't do anything right. I certainly don't want them controlling what my doctor can and can't do, or knowing my health history. It's none of their business, and government shouldn't be getting into any business whatsoever (health care, car companies, banks, etc...).

And I do not want insurance companies controlling what my doctor can and can't do...which is where we are at now. So, what's the solution?

 

[vvx]

Medicare is only what, 10 times more efficient than private health insurance? We should encourage more programs like Medicare while keeping the government out of Medicare so that they don't ruin it.

 

[Kushinator]

Medicare is only what, 10 times more efficient than private health insurance? We should encourage more programs like Medicare while keeping the government out of Medicare so that they don't ruin it.

Are you joking?

 

[DarkWizard12]

And I do not want insurance companies controlling what my doctor can and can't do...which is where we are at now. So, what's the solution?

Competition, that way, supply and demand will work. The consumers will ultimately control what's their doctor does.

 

[Kushinator]

Competition, that way, supply and demand will work. The consumers will ultimately control what's their doctor does.

Supply and demand, the price mechanism, only work if the magnitude of either is relatively similar. In this case, there is no way you could say that they are with a straight face.

Private insurance should be begging the government to take the most high risk people off of their risk pools.