Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food


Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

Wednesday, October 7, 2009

This Is... Genius...

Posted by on Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 3:56 PM

HuffPo:

Senate Democrats have begun discussions on a compromise approach to health care reform that would establish a robust, national public option for insurance coverage but give individual states the right to opt out of the program.

The proposal is envisioned as a means of getting the necessary support from progressive members of the Democratic Caucus—who have insisted that a government-run insurance option remain in the bill—and conservative Democrats who are worried about what a public plan would mean for insurers in their states.

 

Comments (36) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Jonathan Golob 1
Agreed.
Posted by Jonathan Golob http://dearscience.org on October 7, 2009 at 4:00 PM
Joe Szilagyi 2
Bring it on.

If this happens--if the local state legislature or governor of say, Minnesota opts out, and causes a detrimental effect on their constituents, it will be political poison of the absolute highest degree. At the same, it lets the crazies in the Red Nation do whatever the hell they want and lets the rest of us in the saner parts of the nation build the nation we're supposed to have.

How long until we see medical refugees from GOP-dominated states?
Posted by Joe Szilagyi http://www.joeszilagyi.com on October 7, 2009 at 4:03 PM
The Amazing Jim 3
Can we still charge the states that opt-out? The damn red states have been pummeling us blue staters about socialism when they get back more money than they pay to the federal gubmint. Now's our chance to recoup from those dead-beats. Boot-straps, assholes, time to start pulling!
Posted by The Amazing Jim http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/profile.php?id=100000076496291&ref=profile on October 7, 2009 at 4:04 PM
hillpagan 4
ack. I live in Alaksa. Ack.
Posted by hillpagan on October 7, 2009 at 4:08 PM
Joe Szilagyi 5
@3 No way--let them opt out of the taxation as well, but with the option to opt back in fully (with required funding shares/taxation) at any time, or "next calendar year".

The red states by population density and average income will already be paying in less to this system. Let them drop totally off the medical radar, if their expiring leadership wants that, but leave them the way back in.

This would never pass if they still had to pay, and you'd end up giving idiots like Beck and the Teabaggers all the ammunition you need to start a Fox News Civil War or some nonsense.
Posted by Joe Szilagyi http://www.joeszilagyi.com on October 7, 2009 at 4:08 PM
smade 6
Excluding the South would keep the premiums lower, n'est-ce pas?
Posted by smade on October 7, 2009 at 4:24 PM
7
so...canadian.
Posted by optional on October 7, 2009 at 4:26 PM
ohbalto 8
This is a very sexy idea.
Posted by ohbalto on October 7, 2009 at 4:27 PM
Free Lunch 9
A state government could avoid the political poison by putting it up for a vote.

Can you imagine, each state holding an election for this? The insurance companies would go broke advertising against it nationwide.
Posted by Free Lunch on October 7, 2009 at 4:28 PM
Julie in Eugene 10
Well, I would guess that the states that are most likely to opt out, also would be the ones that would end up being subsidized the most under a "socialized" health care system (e.g., poorer states in the south). So, good for the affordability of reform, but bad for the poor in those states.

This could be interesting... it's sort of like saying, hey, if your state doesn't want any stimulus money, you can opt out of it. How many states did that again (other than token refusals of small percentages)?
Posted by Julie in Eugene on October 7, 2009 at 4:32 PM
11
i love it. i think we should extend this concept to other aspects of federal government. california could opt out of the DEA. utah could opt out of any federal funding for education. kansas could simply opt out.
Posted by diggum on October 7, 2009 at 4:35 PM
12
Will this mean exodus of all the infirm from Texas to California, or what?

I still think it would be worth it. We can always tack on a modest residency requirement.
Posted by Orsh on October 7, 2009 at 4:35 PM
Will in Seattle 13
And we shall call those states "red states" - and we shall permit them to hold slaves and give them 2/3 of a vote in the Congress and this shall exist until the end of time ...
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on October 7, 2009 at 4:41 PM
Will in Seattle 14
@6 for the win.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on October 7, 2009 at 4:42 PM
Vince 15
This will be the nail in Republican's coffin.
Posted by Vince on October 7, 2009 at 5:11 PM
Lee 16
@9: That's what worries me about this idea. Once Eyman sets his sights on an initiative that would require the Washington government to opt out of public option coverage, even a reliably blue state like ours could be fucked.

This is an interesting strategic move, but it could definitely backfire in equally interesting ways.
Posted by Lee on October 7, 2009 at 5:21 PM
17
Considering that my governor has already said that he'd opt out of the public option if he had the chance (never the fuck mind what the people actually want), I can't say as I'm terribly pleased about this.
Posted by laurelgardner http://www.etsy.com/shop.php?user_id=5877570 on October 7, 2009 at 5:25 PM
Leslie N. 18
Well, I'd be fucked. I live in Ohio. Good thing I'm joining the military for insurance, a home, and a job instead of going back to college, I guess.
Posted by Leslie N. on October 7, 2009 at 5:44 PM
emma's bee 19
Take heart, Leslie @18. We have a Dem governor and house, and decent public support for the public option:
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1322.xml?Rele…

"But the good news for the President is that by a 49 - 28 percent margin voters say they trust him more than congressional Republicans to handle health care. And voters say 50 - 33 percent that congressional Republicans are more interested in seeing Obama fail than in playing a constructive role in health care reform.

Ohio voters support 57 - 35 percent the idea of giving American consumers the option of buying health insurance from a government-run plan."
Posted by emma's bee on October 7, 2009 at 6:21 PM
20
This would be a boon to border cities next to states that drop the public option imo.

And - I can't imagine any state actually dropping this. They'd get run out of town.
Posted by Comrade Luke on October 7, 2009 at 6:23 PM
21
holy crap that might actually work
Posted by taint on October 7, 2009 at 6:27 PM
22
@17 - Well, then your governor can get voted out of office.

This might be the ticket to getting Democrats elected in Red States.
Posted by JenV on October 7, 2009 at 9:24 PM
yucca flower 23
I like this. I like it a lot. Too bad it wouldn't keep the Lyndon Larouche, Paultard I sit next to at work whining about socialists taking over the country, but still I like it.
Posted by yucca flower on October 7, 2009 at 10:54 PM
Uriel-238 24
Piece by piece, folks. Baby steps.
Posted by Uriel-238 on October 7, 2009 at 11:22 PM
25
Yeah, because this worked so well for gay marriage... Oh, wait. Don't forget that 'red states' are barely made up of majority conservatives, and this plan would be fucking a lot of people out of a public option who desperately want one. I've already been told by my state reps that a public option is unfair (?!), but that forcing people to buy into private insurance is A-OK.

This is a terrible plan.
Posted by johnnymurdoc on October 8, 2009 at 5:12 AM
Mike in MO 26
11 FTW!

Posted by Mike in MO on October 8, 2009 at 6:20 AM
27
I'd like to know how the states get to opt out. Can Pawlenty or Jindal just unilaterally shut it down in those states and fuck everyone or do they have to get the state legislature to approve it?
Posted by Root on October 8, 2009 at 7:28 AM
28
this is a promising idea.
we red states could opt out and watch our freeloader moocher sucking-the-government-titty types flock to the blue states.
it would greatly lessen our social services burden, improve our schools, drastically lower the crime rate and leave the place smelling much fresher.
Posted by do you think the homos will go, too? on October 8, 2009 at 8:54 AM
29
seriously it is a good idea because it allows the 'states as laboratories of democracy' concept to play out. states that want can participate. they WILL discover that it is ruinously expensive but the tinkering to make it work will eventually lead to more workable solutions.
Posted by Louis Brandeis on October 8, 2009 at 9:00 AM
30
Can we call all the red state citizens who'd be crossing state lines to get treatment illegal immigrants?
Posted by Karey on October 8, 2009 at 9:30 AM
31
call them whatever you want just don't send them back
Posted by We're changing the Locks after they Leave on October 8, 2009 at 10:32 AM
Will in Seattle 32
If someone from an opt-out Red state crosses into a Blue zone, can we brand them with a scarlet R on their foreheads so we can make sure they get no medical services in our state?

Or shoot them - that would work too.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on October 8, 2009 at 10:59 AM
33
22 - Oh, he's already doomed. But he can fuck things up while he's still there. The whole "just be patient" approach isn't exactly great when it comes to health care.
Posted by laurelgardner http://www.etsy.com/shop.php?user_id=5877570 on October 8, 2009 at 11:44 AM
34
"we red states could opt out and watch our freeloader moocher sucking-the-government-titty types flock to the blue states."

Sure. Have fun watching your freeloader moocher employers and industries who don't want to pay for health care plans flock to blue states too.
Posted by MBI on October 8, 2009 at 6:06 PM
35
34
exactly.
when the state starts picking up the tab most employers are going to drop their coverage and send their employees to the state plan.
hope your state has a nice fat line of credit with China...
Posted by cha-chingaroo! on October 8, 2009 at 6:59 PM
36
The public option does not mean that the government pays for the health care; it means they run the insurance program without collecting a profit. They may also decide to subsidize those who can't afford insurance, but that's completely separate from the existence of a public option--it would subsidize those with private insurance as well.

And if you can't imagine a state opting out of the public option, then you have not lived in a red state.
Posted by Mardig on October 15, 2009 at 9:31 AM

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy