Hell, I hope it makes it into the final bill. Let the neo-Confederate teabagger states be a comparative laboratory that shows the whole nation how swell it is to be insured by a local monopoly. If the locals would rather pay higher rates if that's what it takes to be safe from the evuls of soshulism, let 'em. If they don't like it, however, they know what to do come next election day.

And if you're an elected state-level representative in that state, and you choose to speak for your people and opt out, thus depriving them of an affordable option, you and your suffer the consequences at the polls. Folks in these states would see lower rates anyway as the pool of insured people would grow and traditionally blue states with large populations embrace the robust public option, and they would still receive subsidies to buy coverage. And if the people in the state still want a P.O. after that, they will elect representatives who will want to opt back in. That said, I don't think you'll see many states, even the reddest of the red, opting out, a la stimulus.

Or you push your state to opt back in. I mean think of the businesses that will flock out of states who opt-out? How many ruby red states turned down the stimulus money? Senators and Governors with future national ambitions might be willing to make the ideological stand, but the state legislatures were not having it. States could opt out by state vote or referendum - how many republicans would sell out their pocketbook to make an ideological stand? Especially when the robust public option would not be government funded, but would have to run on the policies it sold.

The public option would be cost competitive because it would have to spend 20% on lobbyists, advertising, out of whack CEO
pay and stock dividends. The Public Option would spend about 3% on administration costs. Do republicans believe so ardently that they should have to pay more for advertising, lobbying, CEO millions and stock dividends to others?

Well, if that happened you could always vote against the fools who opted your state out and, if your neighbors disagree with you and like the fact that their goobers saved themfrom the evuls of soshulism, you can vote with your feet.

Did Texas turn down the stimulus money? Of course you're down there and know better than I, but I've been hearing that Texas is trending purple, with former Houston(?) mayor White not a complete longshot to get KBH's vacated seat.

If it is purple, would the moderate Republicans really choose to pay more in premiums just to make an ideological point? If you took all the Dems, and even 10% of the Republicans (Moderate ones) would that give Texas support to stay in? I think Texas would be safe via referendum vote, however state legislature vote could be dicier.

Texas is really key to all of this though, if Texas did out out it would be a huge blow.

I hear you. At the same time, I'm starting to warm to this. This really ends the argument about whether or not there should be a Public Option. That arguments over, and we won. There's going to be a Public Option, now we're down to how big it is, and who it covers.

On the one hand, politically, this undercuts the "Government Takeover" argument, blowing it out of the water. At the same time, its going to be incumbent on those "hostages" of which you rightfully speak to push their Legislatures to do the right thing and keep their access to the Public Option alive.

I remember you're in Texas, the bad laboratory of all things Conservative and Health Care, so don't think I'm dismissing your concerns (you are soooo right on to have them). People in Red States with Red State Legislatures are pretty much screwed (Idaho, Wyoming for sure). Texas is slowly purpling from what I understand (Dad's in the Houston area), so maybe there's a chance it'll be retained in Texas. A funnier thing is to what what happens in Louisiana, where an electrified electorate could finish off Jindal once and for all if he gives the wrong answer on the Public Option.

But go up to JerryFathe and read the two articles from Nate and Ezra. At least there you be able to see some of the upside. And heck, even Howard Dean is okay with it, which is saying something. If Rockefeller and Harkin give the thumbs up, then we got something here.

Don't confuse what a state might do initially with how things turn out in the end. If Texas opts out, it will probably be the only large state to do so. And if the public option works, Texas pols will soon face enormous pressure to opt back in.

This is the worst idea yet - how can states be allowed to opt out on behalf of their citizens whether the citizens want out or not?

Well, they can't, exactly. If a state opts-out, it did so because a)the citizens elected legislators who voted to opt-out, or b)the citizens themselves voted to opt-out. Either way, the citizens had their say.

(And anyway, like many others are saying...the chances of anyone actually opting out seem awfully low.)

Not just people, but businesses, especially those in border towns.

I did the same things you did in the last election. But I don't see how it's Blue State Dems throwing red State Dems under the bus. Ben Nelson isn't a Blue State Dem.. Where are the 60 votes going to come from if the Louisiana Dem and the Nebraska Dem and the Arkansas Dem won't vote for it? The fact that Obama was elected did not revolutionize the overall situation in the Senate. Living in Utah, believe me, I feel your pain. But I think two-thirds or three quarters of a loaf (in the beginning) is better than nothing. The perfect should not be the enemy of the good, etc..

Jesus, enough with the drama. It's not like they'd get to opt out of the whole bill, just the public option. You'd still get the univeral coverage, the ban on recission and preexisting condition terminations, expanded medicaid, subsidies, yada yada yada--eight of the whole nine yards.

Plus, there's a strong likelihood that even the states that opt out will get some of the benefit of the public option, i.e. insurance companies lowering their rates because they're scared the state will opt in.

Frankly, I think Georgia has about as much chance of opting out as North Carolina, slim but not none. Any biggish state with a biggish economy and a biggish budget problem is going to have a hell of a hard time getting an owpt out bill through the state legislature once the staff crunches the numbers. Gonna take an extra pure strain of ideological purity--the kind more commonly associated with the states around Georgia than with Georgia itself.

UTMark's response is that this is the best we can do in the Senate. We need 60 votes, he asserts.

Contrary to this assertion, Brown, Schumer, Harken and others having been telling us that we have the votes to pass the HELP bill with a simple majority. The polls show that the risk is NOT passing reform with a public option, not the other way around.

We don't need 60 votes. We don't need to pass cloture. Cloture would be nice, but reconciliation is a perfectly legitimate, risk-free approach to passing health reform. There's no reason to cower out of fear of Republican rhetoric (e.g. reconciliation is the nuclear option) when Republicans used reconciliation several times when they were in the majority (not to mention the fact that, unlike minority rule under the filibuster, reconciliation is consistent with majority rule under the Constitution).

NC Steve doesn't think Georgia will opt out of the public option? NC Steve clearly doesn't know Georgia politics.

We don't have budget problems down here. When revenues fall, we just cut corporate taxes "to create jobs" and slash spending in "government" schools (consistently among the bottom in the nation)--a vicious cycle. It's not a question of whether Georgia will opt out. Georgia WILL opt out. And yes, with no price controls via a public option, insurers will continue to gouge us.

Either way, it's all speculation, and the will to gamble with the lives of people in other states is surprising and sad.