Is the opt-out public option the silver bullet?
October 27th, 2009 at 08:52am Pat Cunningham
It says HERE that Harry Reid only recently came upon the strategy that now seems to hold great promise for passage of health-care reform legislation.
An excerpt:
The announcement was a dramatic triumph for the progressive community, which had howled and hissed for months as the prospects for a government-run plan dimmed. But the story behind Reid’s decision has more to do with backroom negotiations behind a hastily proposed idea than with a change in political temperament.
The compromise proposal that turned out to be the senator’s solution for the public option impasse — allowing states to opt-out of the system — first came to his attention only three weeks ago, an aide confirmed
POSTSCRIPT: Maybe I’m wrong about this, but I don’t see many states opting out of the public option for very long.
I can envision an out-migration of lots of people from opt-out states to states that offer the public option. Sparsely-populated conservative states — Wyoming, for example — could ill-afford to lose much of their populace.
But, as I say, maybe I’m wrong about this.
Entry Filed under: Uncategorized
19 Comments Add your own
1. QuentinK | October 27th, 2009 at 9:10 am
I think this would be a great way to test the two views. I want a public option because I KNOW my insurance company overcharges on premiums and then weasels out of every possible payment. Since it is tied to my job I’m more or less stuck with it. If the conservatives are so against this let those ten to twelve states opt out and PROVE their way is better. If this happens watch how the insurance companies go out of their way to give these states all the breaks. Even with that I’m betting the public option wins out or at least keeps them a little more honest. At this point that’s all I can ask for.
Oh and if Snuss and Mike don’t like this being ‘forced’ on them let them move out of a good liberal state like Illinois to Montana. We’ll ALL be happier.
2. richard | October 27th, 2009 at 9:38 am
Quinten……please give me an example of any government entity that operates without great deficits. Come on Slugger……I want to hear this.
Then explain how this next great deficit is going to benefit America as a whole in an already down economy. Shortage of Doctors and 47 million new people plus what ever swims across the border. Not a problem right?
3. DingDong | October 27th, 2009 at 9:40 am
You guys are idiots. So when score of people move out of the states that do not have public options to states with public options, those states with the public option will be better off? What, only leaving those states with people that are either employed or can afford insurance? Wow, sounds like those states will be in good shape.
4. richard | October 27th, 2009 at 9:53 am
Maybe the Democrats are hoping that third time is a charm? What I mean by that is that the Democrats are trying anything and everything they can to make you people like their plans to take over our healthcare system. In the past, they have relied on simple tricks to sway public option … like buzz words and focus groups. But something has gone awry lately. No matter what the Democrats call their government takeover of healthcare, people aren’t liking it.
Oh, no! What is a Democrat to do?
So first we had “public healthcare reform.” Then it was “insurance reform.” There was also the “public option.” Well … it’s time to rename “the public option” and Princess Nancy has come up with a new moniker …. “the consumer option.” If you don’t like that one, she suggests another name: “the competitive option.” This is how Nancy Pelosi would like to refer to the government takeover of healthcare. Now you good Democrat myrmidons remember — if you are unfortunate enough to get into a conversation with a liberal today, remember to use the new phrase “competitive option” so as to not offend him or her.
You will love this explanation from Princess Nancy as to why the name needs to be changed. Listen to this: “You’ll hear everyone say, ‘There’s got to be a better name for this … When people think of the public option, public is being misrepresented, that this is being paid for with their public dollars.” Oh right, Nancy. No taxpayer dollars involved, right? And by the way … the proper phrase is “taxpayer dollars,” not “public dollars.” Do we see another change in terminology coming here?
5. joe | October 27th, 2009 at 9:53 am
“Quinten……please give me an example of any government entity that operates without great deficits. Come on Slugger”
Richard are you looking for these government entities to make a profit? Take for example the post office. I don’t care if they lose money every year. Let the post office use our tax revenue to cover the difference. It is a service that we can’t do with out. I’m glad they keep pricing affordable, even if it means they lose money,
I feel the same way with health care. I would rather they attempt to keep pricing down, and cover the difference with taxes. Of course taxes might have to go up, but we are at least receiving an added benefit.
6. QuentinK | October 27th, 2009 at 10:20 am
You’re right richard government entities that run deficits or subsidize industries should be dismantled. I guess we would start with the defense department since they consume 57% of the budget and serve no real purpose. Japan has no military and they get along fine. We spend all of our tax money patrolling the Middle East while China doesn’t spend a dime and rakes in the profits from the region. We also would need to quit any road construction since this only is a bailout for the transportation industry. These are, by far, the biggest waste of ‘taxpayer’ dollars.
Seriously though your words “47 million new people plus what ever swims across the border.” despite their racist undertones give a perfect example of who and how this will help,
DingDong-Like I said, If you’re so sure these conservative hold-out states are going to make out so well you’re free to move to one of them. See ya.
Joe-You’re right. If all this does is stop the rapid increase in insurance premiums and health care costs it will be worth it.
7. richard | October 27th, 2009 at 10:39 am
You two (Quinten/Joe) should start your post with , “Once Upon A Time” Is that how all fairy tales are suppose to start?
Liberals act as if you wish for it to be true, it will be. Do you guys honestly believe your own lies? Deficits will be what eventually lead to the disaster of America. China has already bought more of our debt that I would have ever wanted to have seen in my lifetime. Who do you think will finance those deficits in which you two are so proud of? Not us as we will be broke as a country.
Just look at the most liberal States now. What do they have in common. Illinois, California, New York and Michigan? The most debt and financial trouble and we have not even got to the Competitive Option with Health Care.
8. richard | October 27th, 2009 at 10:45 am
I dare say that there is a consensus over one issue in this country: federal government spending is out of control. This is not exclusive to Barack Obama and the Democrats. We have been spending wildly for decades. President Bush doubled spending during his tenure. The difference is that now the people of this country are starting to understand the ramifications of this runaway spending. They get it. The other difference is that politicians (like Obama) were elected based on their campaign promises to rein in spending, and they haven’t followed through. The people of this country are starting to realize that all political promises to reduce spending - or to slow down spending increases — were nothing but a bunch of horsesqueeze. Politicians don’t increase their power by cutting spending. They can get elected by promising .. but they won’t stay in office by delivering. Once you’re enthroned in Washington you quickly learn that you buy votes to stay there.
So here is what I want you to remember. You elected Barack Obama to the White House. You put the Democrats in charge of Congress with supermajorities. Under their watch .. under complete Democrat leadership … domestic discretionary spending for the fiscal year 2010 will increase by 12.1%.
Got that? That is a 12.1% increase in domestic federal spending from years prior. THAT is apparently what Democrats call change you can believe in.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204518504574416631441797424.html
9. expdoc | October 27th, 2009 at 10:47 am
I’m surprised you guys are debating the public option with the opt-out provision because even Harry Reid doesn’t know what that means or how it will work.Will the citizens of those states that opt-out be able to opt-out of some of the tax increases as well?
http://www.demconwatchblog.com/diary/2657/what-does-the-optout-provision-really-mean
10. richard | October 27th, 2009 at 11:11 am
EXPDOC
What is the Public Option? Is that not dead. Nancy Pelosi now calls it the Competitive Option.
As to not knowing how the opt-out will work with Harry Reid. When has Harry Reid ever had a clue to what he was talking about?
11. Mike Carroll | October 27th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
From todays WSJ Political Diary-”President Barack Obama may inspire near-worship among his fans, but he’s struggling to win converts to ObamaCare. On Thursday, Cardinal Francis George, the Catholic archbishop of Mr. Obama’s Chicago hometown, told us every one of the health-care reform bills passed by congressional committees allow for taxpayer funding of abortion — and therefore are “unacceptable” to Catholics.
Cardinal George also serves as president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, so his voice carries great weight in Catholic policy discussions.
The cardinal, in a visit with the Journal’s editorial board, described his top priority for health-care reform: “Nobody should be deliberately killed.” He added that his understanding is that President Obama has promised federal funding will not go to any health plans that cover abortion. “The President has made promises and the Democrats should keep them,” said the cardinal.
If his non-negotiables are met, would the cardinal support health care reform? He says that many in his flock lack insurance, and the church wants health care to be available to all people. But as for endorsing a particular legislative remedy, the cardinal said, “That would be a big mistake.”
–
If I remember correctly Pat, and I do, you and I wagered a Jackson on this issue. Warm up your checkbook. I think a donation from you to The United Way will be in order shortly. Be grateful-I could select a cause that would really annoy you.
12. expdoc | October 27th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
I don’t know about silver bullets in healthcare, but the silver bullet for global warming is not cap and trade. It may be a helium balloon and a garden hose.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704335904574495643459234318.html
But when it comes to the religion of global warming—the First Commandment of which is Thou Shalt Not Call It A Religion—Messrs. Levitt and Dubner are grievous sinners. They point out that belching, flatulent cows are adding more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere than all SUVs combined. They note that sea levels will probably not rise much more than 18 inches by 2100, “less than the twice-daily tidal variation in most coastal locations.” They observe that “not only is carbon plainly not poisonous, but changes in carbon-dioxide levels don’t necessarily mirror human activity.” They quote Mr. Myhrvold as saying that Mr. Gore’s doomsday scenarios “don’t have any basis in physical reality in any reasonable time frame.”
13. SNuss | October 27th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
“don’t have any basis in physical reality in any reasonable time frame.”
Sounds like virtually anything proposed by the Left.
14. Pat Cunningham | October 27th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Mike Carroll: Is this the same Cardinal George whose church teaches that artificial birth control is “intrinsically evil”? Just asking. If so, when’s he going to push for a federal law banning The Pill? Not anytime soon, I suppose.
15. expdoc | October 27th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Joe Lieberman gets it:
Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) said Tuesday that he’d back a GOP filibuster of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s health care reform bill.
Lieberman, who caucuses with Democrats and is positioning himself as a fiscal hawk on the issue, said he opposes any health care bill that includes a government-run insurance program — even if it includes a provision allowing states to opt out of the program, as Reid has said the Senate bill will.
“We’re trying to do too much at once,” Lieberman said. “To put this government-created insurance company on top of everything else is just asking for trouble for the taxpayers, for the premium payers and for the national debt. I don’t think we need it now.”
Asked about Lieberman’s threat to filibuster a final vote on the Reid plan, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said: “I haven’t seen the report from Sen. Lieberman or why he’s saying what he’s saying. I think Democrats and Republicans alike will be held accountable by their constituents who want to see health care reform enacted this year.”
Lieberman said that he’d vote against a public option plan “even with an opt-out because it still creates a whole new government entitlement program for which taxpayers will be on the line.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28788.html
16. DingDong | October 27th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
QuentinK, do not worry I will. I am embarrassed to live in this state.
17. Mike Carroll | October 27th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Somehow Pat seems to miss the point of posts he doesn’t like. I wonder why that is?Just asking.
18. snuss | October 28th, 2009 at 7:15 am
It appears that Reid’s proposal is being rejected by enough Senators, on either side of the aisle, to scuttle it.
And Nancy Pelosi’s re-naming of the so-called “public option” to the “competitive option” is a laughable attempt to deceive the public. A turd, by any other name, is still a turd, and it stinks just the same.
19. richard | October 28th, 2009 at 7:55 am
Great Point Snuss but too funny. As Pat would sy……You Nailed it!
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed