Okay, Senate Is Including A Public Option; Now What?
So the pressure we brought to bear on Harry Reid's office over the weekend did have some effect. The bill does have a public option, despite mutterings from unnamed sources that the mythic and coveted 60 votes would be a whole lot easier without the public option. But we're not out of the woods yet, not by a long shot.
Now we get to see the Republicans really ramp up the scare tactics--telling the gullible and easily frightened that this is just one step behind the evil Soviet Empire that St. Ronnie slayed, with its government-run health care, all evidence to the contrary. Up until this point, Obama has kept the Senate dealings at arm's length, a political calculus that made some sense, looking at what happened to Clinton's attempt to get health care passed. But it's going to take some seriously strong political leadership now to make it untenable for any member of the Senate to vote against health care reform. As Mike Lux says, "Game On":
We don't yet know whether we will get the best version of the public option in the House bill, and the Senate version is not as strong as progressives have been pushing for. But strengthening the form of the public option can be negotiated over in conference committee, once we get there.
For now, we can thank Harry Reid (HCAN has a page here) and Nancy Pelosi for their gutsy leadership, and fight like hungry dogs to win the floor fight and deliver on this hope. In the coming weeks we will have an all-hands-on-deck, all out public war with the insurance industry over whether we finally pass comprehensive health care reform or once again fall short at the bitter end after coming so far.
Here's where things are as we head into the floor fight:
1. White House staffers confirmed for me this afternoon that they are backing Harry Reid's decision "100 percent." Now that's not to say they aren't a little nervous about it. I suspect that there are still some feelings by some people working in that building that progressives should have given up and rolled over, and let them cut a deal with Olympia Snowe on her trigger-written-never-to-trigger. That would have been easier than sweating what will undoubtedly be a very tough battle to get all 60 Democrats to go along with the rest of the party. But us irritating progressive folk got in the way of doing that, and now Obama knows it's time to stand and deliver. I believe my friends at the White House when they say they will do an all-out fight for this bill. They know that starting down this path, and not being able to pull it off, would be a huge embarrassment and destroy all the momentum we've built by making it this far. They are all-in, and know how much is at stake. Rahm Emanuel and Jim Messina are famous for twisting arms and doing everything in their power to get the votes that are needed, and now is their time to deliver.
That's where you come in. Progressive Change has a petition for you to sign to ask President Obama to stand firm and fight:
"Every day, insurance companies deny care and let people die. Getting one Republican senator's vote is not worth delaying reform -- too many real lives are at stake. We need you to fight and state clearly that anything less than a strong public option is not change we can believe in."
Go. Sign. Make phone calls. Let your voice be heard.
Which 'Public Option' will it include?
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
the watered down one
That is my sneaking suspicion I just wanted to see it in writing.
---
HR 676, single payer is the only way. Get the Wall Street Mafia out of health care.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
"We have 60 people in the caucus," he said. "We all hug together and see where we come out."
. . . that Obama and the party take credit for passing health insurance reform, which they will trumpet in 2010, while costs continue to rise.
Unless you have a public option available to everyone who wants it and not to the sliver of citizens unable to purchase coverage elsewhere, this is all window-dressing. Indeed, it merely shifts the cost of covering previous indigent health care away from hospitals (who thereafter pass some of the cost on the federal government) to taxpayers directly. Taxpayers already receiving insurance through their employment will continue to pay sharply escalating premiums year after year. The only thing the watered down public option does is limit the windfall the private insurers would otherwise enjoy with 47 million new customers.
The funny thing is that programs like Stephanie Miller, Thom Hartman and Mark Thompson are patting the administration and congress on the back in regard to their willingness to champion a public option, without even pausing to consider the nature of the option itself. An "option" which isn't available to the "public" cannot legitimately be called a "public option," but the adminstration and congress are doing it anyway, apparently having learned from the Republicans that calling items something other than what they actually are allows you to pass bad legislation while still taking credit for it.
#:)
"Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of Stupidity" - Frank Leahy
You have some of it right but some is not.
Certainly the Democrats will seek political thunder which they undoubtedly will not deserve.
The public option needs to be cheaper than private insurance, fairer than private insurance and widely available.
This is not likely to be the case.
Employers provide coverage for their workers who are hit with co pays or restricted benefits. This will worsen but they are not actually paying premiums directly. They are paying premiums indirectly through reduce wages but this is rarely understood. Unless the employer drops coverage altogether and this is also likely to increase.
Right now medicaid covers the indigent, that hits the taxpayers, hospitals also pick up slack that is cost shifted to people who pay out of their own pockets. Insurance negotiate cost concessions from providers, individuals pay full price.
Our system now is very unfair, uneven and expensive.
The proposed system (we haven't a bill yet but based on the committee work) is likely to be still unfair, still uneven and still expensive. There might be some leveling for some people.
The whole point is, the Corporate Troika will be the greatest beneficiaries.
That is why single payer is the only thing that makes complete sense.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
people that the insurance companies do. Just one. Will anyone try to do this for me, please?
Not saying it's a good benefit, given that those resources might be devoted elsewhere. But it takes a lot of manpower to deny patient claims and haggle with physicians.
the collateral damage is a net negative.
The request was to name one thing the insurance industry does to benefit real people. Nobody mentioned anything about net social good.
Again, I personally think (as I specifically stated) that this kind of resource could be better directed elsewhere.
whatever, the notion that employing people to reject/deny claims is net positive is ridiculous. you said yourself..'not saying it's a good benefit' employing real people..........remember the young girl denied a liver transplant. by the way who/what are these "real people"?
payer plan to do essentially the same jobs. Try again.
You stated:
"I dare anyone to name one thing that benefits real people that the insurance companies do. Just one. Will anyone try to do this for me, please?"
I responded:
"They employ a lot of real people. Not saying it's a good benefit, given that those resources might be devoted elsewhere. But it takes a lot of manpower to deny patient claims and haggle with physicians."
So there's your one thing -- some people owe their employment to the insurance industry.
You claim that all of these people would be absorbed through the single payer plan. That's nonsensical -- the cost savings associated with a single payer plan (which I advocate from experience, having lived in Canada for 10 years) would result, at least in part, from eliminating administrative costs, i.e., workers, who review claims and haggle with doctors all day. This is, incidentally, the reason why doctors support health reform -- while many doctors are likely to be paid less, they also will be relieved of the cost of employing administrative staff for the specific purpose of processing insurance claims. If you only have one insurer, i.e., the federal government, processing claims is far less arduous.
There's no need to manufacture facts like the federal government will soak up each and every administrative job involved in the processing of insurance claims in order to advocate on behalf of a single-payer system.
I meant what do they do for the average citizen that necessitates all insurance premiums to be filtered through them? What do they GIVE for the money? And like I said already, I do NOT mean that their employment of people. Those people just sort the money for them, and deny claims and cancel coverage. I am not manufacturing anything. And those dirty bastards, the doctors and all the others who want to rein in runaway costs. How dare they? To meet you half way, many of those people would be absorbed into single payer, if not all of them. I would rather some people have to find new jobs that have people not receive medical care. You pick one.
And you've got it wrong.
Simply stated, hospitals presently serving the massive number of the underinsured and those urban and rural indigent who have fallen through the cracks, i.e, working without any/sufficient insurance coverage but making too much to be eligible for Medicare, end up either: (i) sticking it to the patient or (ii) absorbing and writing off the costs of service, a circumstance which has put many hospitals in this country, e.g., Atlanta's Grady Hospital, at risk. There are federal programs that allow the hospitals to recover a portion of the monies associated with this kind of care, so there is some relief to the hospitals.
The problem with the "public option" (as Obama described during his speech last month) is that the option is only available to those who fall through the cracks. Consequently, these people get coverage, and the government rearranges the federal balance sheet to pay for it. The problem, then, is two-fold. First, and most importantly, solving the insurance problem for this group, while admirable, doesn't do anything to hold down costs for anyone else. While the claim is that providing this class with health care will lower costs for consumers, that's disengenuous. Indeed, since these people were previously uninsured, the idea that insuring them will bring down service rates for everyone else is nonsensical - they were never part of the equation, and since the rates paid by the coverage they expect to receive (Medicare plus 5%) don't apply to anyone else (because nobody else can opt in to the supposedly public option), insurers will be free to continue raising their rates elsewhere, with employees generally feeling the pinch of increased premiums. The cost for employees won't come down; instead, the costs for healthcare overall should come down, again assuming these new recipients are proactive and don't wait until they're literally on death's door before seeking medical assistance.
But this leads us to the second problem, which you should be able to figure out if you're paying attention. Given that the public option described by Obama creates a new class of recipients, someone's going to have to pay for this program, which is why Obama mentioned taxing health care benefits from those receiving coverage through their employers. Which leads to a perverse result -- on the one hand, we're being asked to pony up to take care of those who don't have health insurance or are underinsured, while on the other the government's doing nothing to eliminate the supernormal rate increases foisted upon the employed by the insurance companies through their employers. Now, some might be compelled to argue that those currently insured are paying anyway when the hospitals pass on their increased costs to patients. But that's only half-true. If you have a co-pay for service, like most people, the insurers negotiate (low) payments to the hospitals, and leave you to handle the rest; but the cost savings you might theoretically realize are gobbled up by your increasing premiums. And this doesn't even account for the fact that individuals who previously mortgaged their homes, etc. to pay for their health care costs are going to be relieved of that burden. I'm not saying I oppose that outcome, but someone's going to have to foot the bill.
Assuming -- and its only an assumption, because I haven't reviewed the specifics of the yet to be disclosed public option in writing -- that the public option is similar to the program described by Obama, we're screwed. The only way to slow down or reduce the amount of money actually paid in the form of premiums by Joe Six-Pack to his insurance company is to: (i) institute a government-paid health care program (my choice); or (ii) enact a robust public option that anybody can buy into at rates based on a sliding income scale, capped at a certain amount. Any other result permits insurers to keep raising their rates.
Medicare has nothing to do with income. I agree with the first part of your conclusion. Single payer is best. The insurance companies have no use to anyone except themselves. Some one will have to foot the bill. If they use Medicare for everyone, and take the income limits away, we'll have what everyone needs.
First, the statement "Medicare has nothing to do with income" is false. Medicare Part B pays for physician services required on an out-patient basis, and includes a monthly premium based on the enrollee's income.
Second, I was referring to Part A, and I was arguing prospectively (obviously) that a viable public option would allow anyone under 65 to enroll in a Medicare-like program if they so choose based on a sliding income scale, capped at a certain amount. The reason why this kind of option would have to be based on income (and I'm stunned I need to point this out, but you didn't know what Part B is either) is because you'd conceivably have a rush to this program by high-income earners looking for lower premiums than they're presently paying through their employers. For example, my premium is $1100 per month, an amount a lot of people cannot afford. If you offer me Medicare with a flat rate of (for example) $400 per month, I'm signing up for Medicare.
In fact, Mexico's experiencing this kind of problem right now. Americans are flocking to Mexico in droves because the Mexican government-administered health care program charges far less than American private-insurer plans.
.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
is the same for EVERYONE, regardless of income. $96.40. Medicare Part A is without cost to the subscriber.
There is nothing to the PI at this time, so how do YOU know what is in it? You got nothing but speculation. The whole idea is to take private insurance companies out of the equation by putting them out of business. You do not know what you are talking about. Mexico? You liar. You're just making shit up, now. Go away.
.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
You get to choose the private insurer that will cover you, but only if they write coverage in your state. BUT you have the option of moving if that insurer does not do business in your state.
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
which may require you to get a passport to move back if your old state secedes, which may be denied if you have a preexisting parole violation or improper party registration.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
but ONLY in months that have 32 days.
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
Kinda like following the Grateful Dead...
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
Oct. 26: Rachel Maddow is joined by Sen. Ron Wyden, D-OR, to assess the public option to be included in the Senate health reform bill.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/33486...
________________
common sense matters as much as truth
Emergency Roadside Service
Collision
Liability in case you make someone sick
As part of this legislation...private insurers will be required to provide reduced premiums to people wearing personal airbags, crash helmets and steel shoes.
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
will be managed by the same thieves whose profits will be guaranteed by this bill until at least 2013, when costs will be 60% higher.
________________
common sense matters as much as truth
premiums. And that will be all profit for them. I am not kidding.
A true Public Option was never on the table.
Manipulated err I mean managed by private insurance.
We will all be dead by the time dust clears.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
so I'm "happy" for now. Comfortably numb till the mandatory part of the public option kicks in.
no time to fight.
It is mind numbing how big an asshole Harry Reid is.
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
So many pundits were saying there will be no public option and this is the end of the world. . .
lololololo snort
CRACKS ME UP!
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
The end of the world will occur when the pundits are right.
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
The pundits ARE right.
(As opposed to 'correct'.)
They are corporate whores with average opinions for the most part. Their views are not better than an average blog poster these days.
The internet is full of bogus 'American patriots', posting from places like Latvia, Qatar, and Nigeria.
So can we get discount government smokable Tetrahydrocannabinol now?
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaQEGLK5lFk
Soma.
Somaltine.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
it still be illegal?
It is called marinol, pure THC straight high, leaves out the other good compounds.....Corporate junk pills.
Lets get all of the sheep together and have them call their reps and rant and rave about the smoke screen that they have been told about while the real issues still lay stay behind the scenes. Great strategy, talk up all the possibilities and leave out the underlying truths......
you have little chance of recovering these days so you can just "walk out" and wrap up your affairs.
Nope they want to confiscate your wealth before you go. Whatever wealth you got be it an estate or a trailer.
the real problem is that we have let it happen and not enough people believe that the government could do something like that. "We should trust our elected officials to vote in our favor and tell us what to do" There is still time to make a change, but not enough people willing to speak with one voice......
i thought they were into the romance of "individualism" .....freedom of choice......not the collective...power of one. the libertarians will probably approve of the "opt out" until they further realize that when the uninsured/under insured cost is SHIFTED to them by health care insurance corporations...essentially a hidden TAX. health care conditions and health care insurance is a
collective issue/model. either way......... people pay. i'm not thrilled about the possible mandate just like others aren't thrilled about the SHIFTED cost they take on while in the paying pool.
Maintain your freedom, by chanting what everyone else is chanting!
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
more Totino pizza rolls.
was Clint Eastwoods finest libertarian cinematic taunt de force yet.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
And beer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEbUtpPQihM
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Can you throw someone under the bandwagon?
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
you cain't hardly expect them to throw theirselfs
under.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
... progressives have to raise a stink at all. Gutsy Reid and Pelosi have folded before on issues that progressives held to be just as important (like FISA).
Wave a bunch of cash under their noses, and their spinal fortitude evaporates. It's happened before. It will happen again.
We have to ask ourselves why we keep coming back to get kicked in the face.
because the American people put to much faith in Gov.
Faith in government would be fine if we voted in a Socialist Government. Which is my recommendation.
You will never get anything close with the Republicrats.
The Socialists would work until they got bribed.
You must pay attention and vote for the ones that will do the job for we the peons.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
maybe your correct maybe we should put more faith in the "free market" and corporations like greenspan did. i've heard some say they believe the "free market" cures all.
for the Senate, and the corpora-fascist-owned government in general:
'full of sound and fury....signifying Nothing'!!
That's what's been taking place lo these many months - a discussion, a distraction - nothing more. The Congress and the Insurance Corporations have no intention of giving up their hard-earned graft/profits. Whatever bill or 'public option' finally gets passed (if it actually gets enough votes)will still not be what we need and deserve: universal, single-payer health care!!!
"Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of Stupidity" - Frank Leahy
Do I understand the Public Option (as it is now)correctly? Since I don't have insurance I will be forced to buy it from a for profit insurance company?
business basically. "Competitive Option"
If you understand it then you are the only one. So far it is vaporware legislation.
Trust me, because I studied Lucy, she always knew exactly when to pull the football away.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
by wanting to be an individual in the age of "socializing" via texting, cell phones, face book, my space and twitter and questioning the "norm".
Norm had no answers for you Evet.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
See Liberman post above.
and it will be the government that will be enforcing this requirement. They will likely take the money out of your paycheck if you work, like they do with SS and Medicare. If you do not work, they will fine you, and there is talk of jail for real noncompliance. I am absolutely serious.
Obama already gave the signal a while back, he doesn't listen to the Pot Heads on the internet, remember?
I see no point.
They are gonna do what ever they are gonna do, it is already done, allready decided, They are just wasting time, dragging it out till they find the next cover for the Illegal wars, Illegal wire taps and detentions, blah blah blah...
one of the ones they won't have to tap or detain.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
Uh. I am tapped and traced, just not detained. They just tried last tuesday using my son to sting me, What a bunch of nice EvanJelloKills around here.
These people are total idiots, I really don't know what to say.
your own kettle of fish to fry.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
They are exposing themselves. I am making the list up, finding the whores around here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9jM0iMo1vk
Lieberman trying to block the public option.
The internet is full of bogus 'American patriots', posting from places like Latvia, Qatar, and Nigeria.
unless it's extended to Israel.
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
Lieberman is a major SNAKE!!!!!
I don't care if they need him to "caucus"...HE'S A REPUBLICAN FOR CHRISSAKES!!!!
It's time for the Democrats to kick Lieberman out of their precious little caucus and dump him out of the Homeland Security Chairmanship position!!!
Enough of his back-stabbing already!
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
All hail the new Messiah, God is now spelled Gov
Just wander in from Red State did you?
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
I am betting Harrisburg, Craigslist, PA.
central Il out of the Chicago machine
at the end of sentences in that part of the world?
Hell, do they have any complete sentences?
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
who has time for punctuation..........when your preoccupied with the perfect religion of capitalism/"free market". ah yes.... being forced to absorb the cost of the uninsured by the non competitive/monopoly health care insurance industry. essentially a hidden TAX. now that's personal freedom libertarians can believe in. maybe i'm mistaken it seems either way ........you PAY.
Go GALT....
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
And here I thought it was spelled CEO.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
You got that one right!
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
at the bottom of this post? If not, stfu!
dandy
Got sold down the river by the dynamic duo of Pelosi and Reid, with a helping hand from Steny Hoyer.
If the Dems achieve anything as a majority, it's entirely by accident.
The last time the petition was posted on this site. The President can only do so much though. It's up to us to e-mail our reps in Congress to do the right thing. I'm from NY, so I know that Schumer is already on board.
Catch up.
for medical needs. Will that be included? Or will we be taxed or punished for that also?
for creating the institution we abhor -- FOR PROFIT healthcare.
While we're at it, stop calling it HEALTHCARE reform. What we need is INSURANCE reform!
How can we have Health Care reform when no one is addressing the root cause of this countries poor health to begin with.
Our suicidal lifestyle.
Be an individual on this one and speak for yourself.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
I was betting you were blaming the lack of tubers as the root cause.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
Sen. Fuckwad Backstabber (CFL) sides with the Rushthuglicans on the public option. Anyone surprised? Especially what with Connecticut being a Big Insurance state and all and with Sen. Backstabber being an all around Democratic back stabber.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/li...
his nose is still brown from having it up mccLair's ass during the campaign.
industry universe.
I keep reading blogs and comments from both sides, and it appears that everyone has their minds made up before they even know what the heck they are talking about. If you are on the left, then public option is good. If you're a wingnut, then it's bad. But most of us on the left have not even asked what the public option will entail. Obviously we don't know, because it's not out yet. All that everyone in the liberal camp knows is that "public option good". That's just as bad as the knee-jerk reaction from the right that the option is bad.
For all we know, the public option as the idiots in D.C. write it may be the worst thing since the plague. Just like mandated insurance. No one seems to want to talk about that very much. All the attention goes to the public option. Mandated health insurance is extremely bad for the public. It's worse than the black plague. It will result in people being put in far worse financial positions than anything else. We should be fighting mandatory health insurance with every ounce of our energy. And as far as the public option goes, why don't we wait until we see the wording in the bill before we jump on the bandwagon. If we don't, we'll be just as bad as those idiots on the right.
We must demand to see the bills for several months before they are voted on so that we may force our representatives to fix the problems before they become law. We must stop mandatory health insurance immediately. And we must shut down the right-wing propaganda machine any way possible.
companies can charge anything they want to charge. Mandatory and no caps? OMG!
I just had an idea. Why doesn't someone start a not-for-profit health insurance corporation, ala Medicare, that provides health insurance for anyone who wants to join?
What happened to the days of our elected officials actually voting in the favor of his constituents? In a matter such as this it should be brought forth to the entire society and voted on such as the president is. This is just as con traversal as the Stimulus package that they blindsided us with and look were that has done. absolutely NOTHING!
.
what happened to the constitution. while your at it ask BUSH about the constitution.
most of us understand that all the public option model(s)/legislation are NOT created equal. personally, i'm not thrilled from what i think i know about the "mandate". having said that i have spoken to many(paying pool) that are NOT thrilled/very happy with absorbing the cost of the increasing uninsured/under insured SHIFTED to them by the health care insurance corporations. the increasing demographic getting priced out of affordable health care insurance adds a significant cost to the paying pool/TAX payers. some how some way everyone needs to be insured for this to work. the single payer i don't believe is an option not yet anyways. the public option may be the transition.
"everyone needs to be insured for this to work ", that's right on "constituent" and is why the opt out provision absolutely stinks , it's a win for the Repugs and the Insurance companies , it just weakens any public option plan , makes it less likely to succeed and is an opening for the bad guys to eventually do it in and go back to business as usual should we win . Sign the petition folks ! Just takes a few seconds .
for this to work." They are not all insured now, and I fail to see what would be different if people are forced to buy private insurance. At least from a real person's perspective and experience. Can someone explain to me why single payer was never considered, other than it would kill the private insurance industry and it's undeserved profits? Anyone?
a couple reasons come to mind for why everyone should be insured: first increasing the size of the paying pool allows the risk to be among a large group/across the age spectrum, secondly if more/everyone is covered most likely some conditions will be intervened earlier thus potentially becoming less expensive/chronic. hey i totally understand the "single payer" battle cry....it's not going to happen........yet. most will disagree i've said it before this country is in the leaning right spectrum of social engineering. people are fragmented/somewhat selfish. the lack of collectiveness/community is where we have been for the last 20 yrs. and time the last 10 yrs. like i said before i'm not entirely sure about the "opt out" provision but it seems to me it will put pressure on lawmakers considering it. why because reality will rear it's head on the local level. now lawmakers can hide in washington. some are concerned about their state soveriengty(sP).
i really believe most states will NOTexercise the "opt out". the cbo may say differently though because of state funding strategies. i believe there's more people now and upcoming that don't/won't have health care insurance. i want to believe this may be a good strategy by the left for the right. especially, on the local level(state) when people really understand and admit they need a competitive public option because they're getting priced out of health care insurance and/or lost their job and/or their job no longer provides comprehensive health care insurance.
Comments are closed on this entry