Skip to main content

Divide and Conquer. The insurance companies. Make them fight 50 states.

Let the Red States thumb their nose at their constituents and opt out of public option. We let them opt out of the stimulus. A couple of governors opted out...Palin and Sanford...look where it got them. Their legislatures overruled them. They became vulnerable to attacks and irrelevant.

Insurance is a state's right issue. Let states make up their own minds. There are enough Blue states to maintain the economies of scale for the option. There are also Red states with governors like Brian Schweitzer.

Let's give it to them and tell them they don't have to keep it. They can opt out of it. The public option will be self sustaining and won't cost them anything substantial. Leave it to local politics. We are fighting 3-4 hydras with 400 heads each. Let's make those hydras spend exponentially more money as they try to pay off the myriad of local politicians in all 50 states instead of letting them exploit the DC bottleneck.

This creates a paradigm shift.

All of a sudden the Red ones have lost their windmill.

Also, it will take 4 years to put into place. There's time for demographics to change and opt in.

It may relieve ever increasing stress on state budgets.

Red states will be less competitive for businesses.

This isn't about need based assistance. I'm talking about the idea of a govt administered Insurance Plan competing with private plans.

This isn't about Republican votes in Congress. We're not gonna get them no matter what gets put forth.

This is about letting Blue Dogs go home and say "we gave you the choice".

This is about making Governors and state legislatures look at their constituents who are growing older and sicker and less insured by the day and telling them they don't give a good god damn.  That didn't happen with the stimulus. I don't think it will happen here.

How many tries did it take to pass Medicare? 3-4. LBJ's using JFK's death to promote the bill couldn't get it passed. It didn't get passed until 1965. 5 years after JFK took office.

Originally posted to JerichoJ8 on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 10:01 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  good idea. (7+ / 0-)

      Tonight you're back to coming up with smart ideas & proposals that make sense.  

      I'm not sure I agree completely, but I can see the strategy and it's very very interesting.  

      Forcing the Rs to say No is also good for subsequent elections.  

    •  How will you let them opt out of the cost? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dot farmer

      Key point on their side is that they don't want to pay for it.

      So how will you arrange it so that they are not responsible for paying the costs, including any deficit increases?

      Will you require it to be self funding with a tax that is only imposed on states that opt in?

      •  It's $2 billion dollars. Give them that in stimul (0+ / 0-)

        for some other item.

        Obama - Talk to Timothy Stoltzfus Jost...he seems to know more than you do.

        by JerichoJ8 on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 10:31:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  public plan is paid by premiums (6+ / 0-)

        same as medicare, same as private.

        there isn't any actual cost to the PO.  all the cost comes in subsidies, and right now they're planning to subsidize private insurance for a large chunk of people, which would be substantially more expensive than doing the same for people on a PO.

        l'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers

        by zeke L on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 10:33:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think the red states want out of that too (0+ / 0-)
          •  Premiums would be subsidized more in red states (0+ / 0-)

            than in blue.. In a red state, income up to 3 or 4 times FPL will get somebody a small to middle sized subsidy on the cost of the public insurance which might make it affordable to many. Also, and I think this is even more significant, for those people there may be a limit on uncovered costs, which has the potential to make or break families because the uncovered costs CAN AND OFTEN ARE HUGE..

            For example, the 30% "cost sharing" on a problematic pregnancy could EASILY push a family into bankruptcy..

            If the "in-network" options are terrible (like they often are with modern HMOs) it could end up being a life or death need to go out of network to get decent care..  If people end up not getting reimbursed for that by a public plan, then they will again, be pushed into bankruptcy.

            However, in blue states, a far fewer percentage of people will get subsidies or those limits on uncovered costs IMO, unless their income is abnormally low. (if it was that low, they quite possibly could not afford to live there in that high-cost area at all)

            That means that in red states, the subsidies will help the middle clae class - which needs to happen for 60 to 80% of us to make ANY insurance based on the actual costs of healthcare affordable, public or not, but without subsidies most working poor people in blue states wont be able to afford it because they make too much.

            People in this nation die due to lack of health care. The estimates vary from 18,000 to 101,000 a year, depending on how you measure preventable deaths

            by Andiamo on Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 06:09:35 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  I think putting Health Care Reform (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Odysseus, greengemini, JerichoJ8

          into a quasi-public corporation like the USPS that is only funded by an assessment on states that agree to have it operate in their state might not be a bad idea.

          Key thing would be to clearly establish that it will receive no federal funding and that its debt is not guaranteed by the USG - no bail outs like for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - if it goes under policy holders and people it owes money to get screwed.

          •  Single payer is the only way we would be (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JerichoJ8

            able to as a nation, hammer costs down enough for us,  to make healthcare affordable for the middle class.

            The very poor may get help, but those MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF PEOPLE WHO WORK AND DONT GET PAID ENOUGH TO AFFORD INSURANCE will be as much on their own under public option as they are now, with the extra added burden of being forced to buy it even if they are healthy and young..Thats when they need to be SAVING MONEY LIKE CRAZY - money they wont have because it will be sucked up by expensive insurance premiums and the insurance clearly - barring some miracle in Washington- not even be of high enough quality to 'insure' that they would not get bankrupted if they got sick..

            In ten or twenty years the workplace and especially, work force, will look VERY different than it does today.

            Working until we get old, as many of us plan to do, may well not be an option without substantial investments in learning made now, but how will Americans pay for those classes, for that training, if their income is sucked up by premiums and uncovered medical costs?

            People in this nation die due to lack of health care. The estimates vary from 18,000 to 101,000 a year, depending on how you measure preventable deaths

            by Andiamo on Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 06:23:56 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Mutli-step process but better end result (6+ / 0-)

      I like it.

      Let the states opt out if they do not want a public option.  Make the Republicans vote NO on health care reform on a local level.  This can only help Democrats.

      I agree that we can pass a better bill this way.  Once the public option is shown to work, those states that opted out will come back begging to get in.  

      Simple yet effective.

      For those in the deep south, sorry.  No way to sugarcoat this.  You will suffer in the short term for the greater good of the country.  However, the result will be a far stronger health care system for EVERYONE.  

      Fox is to "news" as WWE is to "wrestling."

      by skisb on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 10:56:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's a big "if" in the south. That means them (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Wee Mama

        telling businesses they can't have cheaper insurance for their employees.

        Obama - Talk to Timothy Stoltzfus Jost...he seems to know more than you do.

        by JerichoJ8 on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 11:02:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Businesses follow lower costs (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Odysseus, JerichoJ8

          It won't take too many businesses leaving non-public option states to make them realize the cost of not having a public option for that state.

          Money talks.  Business owners will not put up with the inequity for very long.

          Fox is to "news" as WWE is to "wrestling."

          by skisb on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 11:17:34 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  This would make public option a commodity (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Wee Mama, dot farmer

            a selling point, should some states choose not to take it.

            What's funny is the Red states are usually the ones that take the most govt assistance.

            They just don't want to share it.

            Obama - Talk to Timothy Stoltzfus Jost...he seems to know more than you do.

            by JerichoJ8 on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 11:22:50 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  I live in Texas (9+ / 0-)

    so, hell no.

    Can you New Englanders please force feed this bill down my idiotic rep's throats? Thank you.

  •  Hell no ass (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Big Tex, satanicpanic

    I'm in Texas and I want into the Public option.  Way to be greedy.

    •  Even if it would pass this way and not your way? (0+ / 0-)

      Obama - Talk to Timothy Stoltzfus Jost...he seems to know more than you do.

      by JerichoJ8 on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 10:09:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Perhaps, you should be calling your reps ass and (0+ / 0-)

      not me.

      Obama - Talk to Timothy Stoltzfus Jost...he seems to know more than you do.

      by JerichoJ8 on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 10:09:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Perhaps you should quite being so elitist. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Big Tex

        Just because you are in a less conservative state doesn't make you any better then me.  There are a lot of good progressives working in states like mine, and we are up against very tough odds, but we are still fighting.  What we need is you so-called progressives from blue states to have our backs, not turn your backs on us.

        •  I'm not elitist. I'm thinking longer term than (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          tmo, Faeya Wingmother

          Christmas.

          It makes me murderous to think about insurance companies making dimes off of people like my mom who never had healthcare and who I watched rot from the inside out and who's only form of gov't provided healthcare was two weeks in the icu with an inadequate morphine drip as she starved to death.

          So please don't fucking sit there and call me elitist like you know me. You don't.

          Obama - Talk to Timothy Stoltzfus Jost...he seems to know more than you do.

          by JerichoJ8 on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 10:24:16 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Oh don't give me that (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Big Tex

            So your mom and every person in a blue state can opt into the Public Option, but all the people who experience problems to the level of (or greater then) your mom, but who lives in a red state can go fuck themselves?

            •  My mom's dead motherfucker so please tell me who (0+ / 0-)

              experiencing something greater.

              Obama - Talk to Timothy Stoltzfus Jost...he seems to know more than you do.

              by JerichoJ8 on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 10:28:20 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I'm sorry about your mother (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Big Tex

                But maybe you should be focusing your anger at the insurance companies, and stop trying to screw over people unfortunate enough to live in areas more conservative then your own.

                I'm surprised when you made this topic you should have expected anger.  People in the south die because they don't have "health" insurance, or their insurance companies screw them over big time.  You're right to be pissed off at the private insurance companies, but I'll be damned if you or an insurance company tries to deny me or my family care.

                Again sorry about your mom.  I'm a single-payer advocate, and I'm peeved enough that we compromised down to a public option.  But I'm not going to compromise down for blue-staters to get a public option, while red-staters rot away.

                •  You know what, don't throw a but in after an (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Faeya Wingmother

                  apology. It demeans it. You can take your lameness and shove it up your ass.

                  If you were sorry about it you wouldn't have disrespected her in the first place after I described the way she died.

                  Noone's going to deny your care. I'm saying give it to all of the states. Let the states decide if they want to become less competitive and opt out of it.

                  Obama - Talk to Timothy Stoltzfus Jost...he seems to know more than you do.

                  by JerichoJ8 on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 10:37:56 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Thank you for your apology. I blew a fuse and (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Big Tex

                  shouldn't have spoken to you that way.

                  Peace be with you.

                  Obama - Talk to Timothy Stoltzfus Jost...he seems to know more than you do.

                  by JerichoJ8 on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 10:44:50 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

    •  You can have it. It would be given to your state. (0+ / 0-)

      It would be up to your state to reject it and become less competitive.

      Obama - Talk to Timothy Stoltzfus Jost...he seems to know more than you do.

      by JerichoJ8 on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 10:10:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  the strategy is this: (7+ / 0-)

      One:  Let the red states opt out.   This makes it easier to pass single payer or a strong public option.

      Two:  What happens is that those states become un-competitive for business, because business has to carry the whole cost of health coverage for their workers.  

      Three:  The red states come back in a few years whining to join up.

      Four:  Victory! and no going back.  

      Strictly speaking I'm not so sure I agree with the idea, but it is certainly interesting and deserves consideration.  

  •  It's the UNITED States... (9+ / 0-)
    I'm not willing to let the needy of any state suffer just because a  majority the population have their heads up their asses.

    "When all you have is an assualt rifle every problem looks like a target." - Something the Dog Said

    by PvtJarHead on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 10:10:21 PM PDT

    •   The needy are already taken care of in other (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      G2geek

      parts of the plan.

      I am talking about the idea of Public Option administered by the govt.

      Obama - Talk to Timothy Stoltzfus Jost...he seems to know more than you do.

      by JerichoJ8 on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 10:13:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  think strategically... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nosleep4u, JerichoJ8

      Letting those states opt out will reduce opposition and enable passing a stronger bill for the reset of us.

      Those states will become uncompetitive for business due to the cost of health insurance.  This will cost their economies, and they will demand to be let in.  

      Once they are let in, we have complete victory.

      Timeline: about four years.  

      I think it's worth a go.  

  •  You mean the states... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Big Tex, pico, Notus

    in which the poplulation is 100% Red? Okay, sounds good.

  •  I have been thinking the same thing (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Odysseus, G2geek, oxfdblue, JerichoJ8

    but letting states opt out isn't the way to go if you want to use this strategy. I'd pass enabling legislation which allows state legislatures to vote on whether they wish to participate in the program.

    Initially many states would vote no. This would keep costs lower and allow for the program to be implemented quicker and cheaper. As residents in these states realized that they were suddenly paying 20% more for premiums than their neighbors the clamor for their legislature to pass enabling legislation would eventually lead to universal passage or something close

    Actually making the bill an expansion of Medicare for all state residents, on a trial basis for states wishing to participate (and also letting them try out coops, restricting the size of businesses able to participate or anything else they want) has the benefit of forcing nothing down their throats,  NOT being nor being perceived as a government takover.

    •  You're about opting in. I like opting out because (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Odysseus, irmaly, Sychotic1, G2geek

      it forces them to tell their voters they don't give a good god damn about em.

      I don't think it's going to be terribly expensive to set up.

      Obama - Talk to Timothy Stoltzfus Jost...he seems to know more than you do.

      by JerichoJ8 on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 10:16:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I like to win (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        greengemini

        Opting in sends the message that absolutely nothing is being forced down their throats. It's non-threatening, and relies on the truth of our own statements here, and our own core beliefs, namely, that this program WILL WORK; when it works even those blood-red states will take notice; health care costs are so obscenely high; who the hell wants to go bankrupt just to say "LIVE FREE...AND DIE EARLY"

      •  Opting out is fine as well, but... (0+ / 0-)

        I just can see scenarios where public outrage in certain states is high and they demand to opt out without really giving it a spin.

        If its opt-in they feel that they "won" since nothing is being forced down their throats; then, when they see what's happening in other states, and how the bill is working, they will, of their own accord, demand to be included

  •  No. I live in Texas. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    theboz, Big Tex

    I'm on Twitter. I'm also a part of the FDL team on health reform.

    by slinkerwink on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 10:19:38 PM PDT

  •  FUCK THAT (0+ / 0-)

    Red states are, unfortunately, home to a good portion of our nation's uninsured. Tennessee, where I live, is one of them.

    Getting coverage for the uninsured red staters is one way to get them to see the light... and find the error in their thinking.

    This is a ridiculous notion.

    Bush repealed Godwin's Law with a Signing Statement.

    by Mad Kossack on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 10:23:34 PM PDT

    •  If they haven't seen the light by now after (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      greengemini

      what the last eight years have wrought...I have trouble believing them being able to buy into the Public Option is going to do that.

      I'm not talking about the needy. I'm talking about the Public Option that people buy into.

      Obama - Talk to Timothy Stoltzfus Jost...he seems to know more than you do.

      by JerichoJ8 on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 10:27:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Do not ever advocate screwing us (0+ / 0-)

        out of what we're fighting for if you ever expect to get support in red states!

        Just because there are a bunch of loudmouthed bullies holding town halls here and there is not a reason to hang the uninsured in red states out to dry. I was at a health care reform rally yesterday that was a counter-protest to a local wingnut tea party.  We outnumbered the teabaggers 2 to 1. Our pro-reform people got lots of honking horns and thumbs up. We're pressuring our lame-ass Blue Dog congressmen to vote for the public option.  

        PLEASE DO NOT ADVOCATE STABBING US IN THE BACK if you want those of us in Red States to keep fighting for health care reform in the most difficult areas of the country for progressives to organize!!!

        Bush repealed Godwin's Law with a Signing Statement.

        by Mad Kossack on Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 06:49:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  This is about the Public Option only as it (0+ / 0-)

          pertains to being a competitive insurance company. This has nothing to do with assistance for the needy without health insurance.

          This is a way for Senators to be able to say they left it up to the states when it passed, just like the stimulus.

          How many states turned down the stimulus?

          Obama - Talk to Timothy Stoltzfus Jost...he seems to know more than you do.

          by JerichoJ8 on Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 08:24:59 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  so how many repu will vote for it this way? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dot farmer

    oh, that's right, zero.

    so i don't see how this would help. it's already optional. but the insurance companies know that people would start switching over in droves, and that's why they hateses it, my precious, hatesss it forever...

    so they'll still instruct their minions like baucus, grassley and conrad to get rid of it.

    l'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers

    by zeke L on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 10:31:31 PM PDT

  •  Strategically interesting (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dot farmer, JerichoJ8

    because it would force state-level repugs to vote on health insurance reform. National-level repugs pretty clearly regard HI reform as just a political food-fight, and are throwing rotten tomatoes as fast as they can. State-level ... well, not clear.

    As a practical matter though, this wouldn't help with passage. None of the national-level repugs would get any benefit. so there'd still be zero votes to be gotten.

    Member, The Angry Left

    by nosleep4u on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 10:42:01 PM PDT

  •  What about subsidies? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    greengemini

    Does opting out nix this part of the package?
    If you have to opt in to get subsidies, you'd have a lot of angry voters clamoring for passage. I think it's always best to present legislation in such a way that the public is the one to put the heat on.

  •  i'm confused (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BFSkinner, dot farmer, MichaelNY

    every state took stimulus money even if their governor said "thanks but no thanks."

    what about this scheme of yours will translate into either republicans suddenly getting out of the way of health care or even voting correctly on health care reform?

    if their line in the sand is the Public Option, and you propose that the public Option is optional, strikes me that they have won both the war of words and the actual battle.

    as you should know, allowing for certain states the ability to opt in or opt out and to have less than standard minimum requirements or even to restrict total number of drugs available under medicaid to a specific number across their medicaid drug formularies (as one example) has led to an incredibly imbalanced medicaid benefit package which can and does vary across state lines.

    states that would "opt out" would then become the states where the public option and its function to corral costs etc. would what, be rendered useless.

    it is cruel and stupid to suggest that people who live in states that have republican members of congress that they are now not only at the mercy of whatever gets passed in a hobbled health care reform bill BUT also on their own.

    the ultimate goal of comprehensive health care reform is right there in the title:  comprehensive.  the minute you decide it is ok to pin and fin some provisions and not guarantee a minimum standard across all the states, cities, across class, across gender and across health status, across age and across regions of the country and across ability to pay, well that's the mimnutye you begin the rapid walk back to the current hobled and inequitabn;e system.

    remember, the republicans have stated that they oppose obama's plan.  period.  anything ceded to them in this struggle is a victory to them and a shattering blow to the issue of health care reform.

    ________________________________

    to that end:

    it is clear to me that the republicans are stealimg a page from the pelosui playbook here, even though the "find and replace" function they used is to replace "social security privatization" (which was a bad idea) with "health care reform" (which is a good idea).

    like the democrats approach to social security privatization, the republicans are offering us nothing of substance to counter the proposals on the table.  they seem to believe that a principled stand in defense of a solid program (social security) is a fitting strategy to employ to maintain a system of health care and health access that is already broken and costing us more than just lives and dollars.

    no, to compromise on the public option is to open the door for an unraveling of more than just health care reform.

    _______________

    Don't confuse them with facts. They have stereotypes on their side. (rserven)

    by dadanation on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 10:47:54 PM PDT

    •  Right (0+ / 0-)

      The states weren't "allowed to opt out" of the stimulus. I don't know where JerichoJ8 got that from.

      •  Palin and Sanford both tried to opt out. (0+ / 0-)

        Their legislatures over ruled them. Try google.

        Obama - Talk to Timothy Stoltzfus Jost...he seems to know more than you do.

        by JerichoJ8 on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 11:36:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm aware of that (0+ / 0-)

          But were they "allowed to" do that? What would have happened if they hadn't been overruled by their state legislatures? Do you know?

          •  I'm sure their legislators have a pretty good (0+ / 0-)

            idea. You should probably ask them why they voted the way they did. Your answer probably lies within their reply.

            Obama - Talk to Timothy Stoltzfus Jost...he seems to know more than you do.

            by JerichoJ8 on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 11:53:37 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  They thought they would lose the money (0+ / 0-)

              But do we know if that's really true? Is there a precedent?

              For the record, I think it's a very bad idea to "let the red states opt out of the public option." There are lots of people in those states who desperately need medical coverage. Plus, the way to get overly impressionable people to stop demonizing and start supporting the "Obama plan" (whatever exactly that is) is for it to start helping them. Part of the hope, I think, is that there will be fewer red states in 2012, once they've actually benefited personally from the actions of the Obama Administration and the Democrats in Congress. FDR didn't deprive Vermont of the CCC, just because they voted Republican. This kind of discrimination would be awful.

              Now, having said all that, if as some kind of out-of-the-box last-ditch negotiations, states (and it would have to be ANY state that so chooses) ARE allowed to opt out of the public option, the only way I could possibly stomach that at all is if states could also have their own single-payer systems.

              •  Kucinich got that "S. Payer amendment in. (0+ / 0-)

                I don't want to deprive anyone of anything. I don't think state legislators want to do it either, regardless of their party, and especially since it's a federal plan administered and paid for by its members and not through taxation.

                Obama - Talk to Timothy Stoltzfus Jost...he seems to know more than you do.

                by JerichoJ8 on Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 12:26:15 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  It remains to be seen (0+ / 0-)

                  if Kucinich's amendment will be in the Conference Report.

                  If you don't think state legislators would opt out of a public option, please explain what your point is in this diary. I really don't mean to be dense, believe me. I just haven't understood yet.

              •  Also, it took JFK and LBJ 5 years to get Medicare (0+ / 0-)

                Obama's no JFK and Biden's no LBJ.

                And they weren't staring down a deficit like we are today.

                Obama - Talk to Timothy Stoltzfus Jost...he seems to know more than you do.

                by JerichoJ8 on Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 12:29:35 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  True about the deficit (0+ / 0-)

                  Which hasn't seemed to prevent the country from pissing away tremendous sums of money on aggression against Iraq. But that said, this plan would also be phased in and wouldn't all take effect immediately upon the president's signature.

                  I'm not so sure JFK was that good a president, by the way. I think a lot of the nostalgia for him is due to his having been assassinated. We don't know exactly what he would have done for the rest of his presidency, though it's interesting for historians to argue about it.

                •  where is your cite (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Big Tex

                  to corroborate this claim:

                  it took JFK and LBJ 5 years to get Medicare

                  at best, it would be 37 months, as jfk put in 18 months of work towards medicare before his assassination and then 19 months into his presidency, LBJ got the job done.

                  _______________

                  Don't confuse them with facts. They have stereotypes on their side. (rserven)

                  by dadanation on Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 12:57:01 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Like this was hard to look up? (0+ / 0-)

                    When campaigning for the Presidency in 1960, John F. Kennedy made health care for retired Social Security beneficiaries a major plank in his platform. In the Senate he had already introduced a companion measure to the Forand bill, which had been introduced initially in the House by Congressman Aime Forand of Rhode Island. In a campaign speech Kennedy described his bill this way: "the bill provides that those who are on Social Security, working and contributing to Social Security, shall make a contribution so that when they are 65 years of age or older if they are men, or 62 if they are women, or over age 50 if they are totally disabled, they can receive assistance from the fund in paying their hospitalization, paying the cost of their examinations and drugs, and also receive some assistance in paying their general medical bills." (6) This was essentially what would become Medicare, although it went beyond Medicare in several respects. (7) This bill would fail to pass the Senate in 1960 by a mere four votes.

                    After becoming President, Kennedy addressed Congress on the need for his Medical Care for the Aged legislation, as part of a State of the Union address. He told the assembled members of Congress: "We need to strengthen our nation by safeguarding its health. Our working men and women, instead of being forced to ask for help from public charity, once they are old and ill, should start contributing now to their own retirement health program through the Social Security system." (8) In a subsequent speech he said, "We're not asking for anybody to hand this out, we are asking for a chance for the people who will receive the benefit to earn their way-the same principle established under the Social Security system in the 30s." (9) Deciding that this was the major issue in the mid-term elections, Kennedy put together a massive political push on the issue. On May 20, 1962 he addressed a rally of 20,000 people in Madison Square Garden on this issue, a speech which was broadcast live over all three television networks, while a cadre of 45 Administration spokesmen were holding simultaneous rallies in major cities around the country.

                    Despite Kennedy's efforts, the new version of his Medical Care for the Aged bill failed of passage in the Senate again in 1962, this time by only two votes. In a national television broadcast after the vote the President complained, "I believe this is a most serious defeat for every American family, for the 17 Million Americans who are over 65, whose means of support, whose livelihood is certainly lessened over what it was in their working days, who are more inclined to be ill, who will more likely be in hospitals, who are less able to pay their bills." He then made the issue a central political issue in the mid-term elections, telling the nation, "I think the American people are going to make a decision in November as to whether they want this bill, and similar bills, to be passed, or whether they want it to be defeated. Nearly all the Republicans and a handful of Democrats joined with them to give us today's setback. . . .We have to decide, the United States, in 1962, in November, in the Congressional elections, whether we want to stand still or whether we want to support this kind of legislation for the benefit of the people. . . .This bill will be introduced in January 1963. I hope it will pass. With your support in November, this bill will pass in 1963." (10) The bill would be re-introduced, but the result would be the same.

                    Following Kennedy's death, Lyndon Johnson got a good deal of political mileage out of sentimental appeals to pass legislation as a tribute to the slain President. If he could plausibly claim that a bill was part of the dead President's legacy, it briefly had an extra boost it might not otherwise enjoy. Johnson certainly tried this tactic with Medicare. It failed repeatedly, but Johnson kept sounding the theme. In early 1965, as what would become the final successful bill was before the Congress, he told a group of government officials at the White House, in a tone which can only be described as maudlin, "The Social Security health insurance plan, which President Kennedy worked so hard to enact, is the American way. It is practical. It is sensible. It is fair. It is just." (11)

                    Obama - Talk to Timothy Stoltzfus Jost...he seems to know more than you do.

                    by JerichoJ8 on Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 08:36:55 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

    •  King of the Strawmen strikes again... (0+ / 0-)

      to opt in or opt out and to have less than standard minimum requirements or even to restrict total number of drugs available under medicaid to a specific number across their medicaid drug formularies (as one example) has led to an incredibly imbalanced medicaid benefit package which can and does vary across state lines.

      Who the hell said anything about Medicaid or standards?

      Obama - Talk to Timothy Stoltzfus Jost...he seems to know more than you do.

      by JerichoJ8 on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 11:38:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  your model for health care reform (0+ / 0-)

        has built-in to it an inequity across jurisdictions from the start.

        if medicaid is to be instructive -- and for those who prefer data to bluster -- we already know what happens when states are allowed to opt in and opt out when it comes to health care and the provision of basic, safety net services and goods -- it does not happen.

        you are agreeing to allow for inequity to be a standard component of your reform system with the opting in or out of the public option.

        clearly you see that.

        and you have yet to clarify the POLITICAL advantage of allowing for this opt-out -- how many votes does it garner?  whose support does it bring on board?

        where is the acumen of such a proposal to bear fruit?  in the senate finance committee?  the full senate vote?

        _______________

        Don't confuse them with facts. They have stereotypes on their side. (rserven)

        by dadanation on Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 12:28:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  it's an issue to discuss. How would anyone on (0+ / 0-)

          this site know what it takes to get a particular member to vote a particular way?

          Inequity is there whether we legislate for against it or not.

          That's a fact of life. Sometimes, it's because of demographics or racism or whatever-ism you want to apply.

          Again with the strawmen...I never proposed a model for health reform, only for making a bill more palatable.

          Are you on meds? You keep making shit up.

          Obama - Talk to Timothy Stoltzfus Jost...he seems to know more than you do.

          by JerichoJ8 on Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 12:33:50 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  last time i checked (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Big Tex

            the public option component is one critical piece of the whole health care reform process.

            your proposal does propose a model for health care reform -- a model that allows for inequity to be considered a baseline and acceptable service delivery component.

            and i am frankly tiring of the personal attacks.  if you can not engage folks here with civility then perhaps you should step away from the keyboard.

            _______________

            Don't confuse them with facts. They have stereotypes on their side. (rserven)

            by dadanation on Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 12:59:50 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Excellent idea (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JerichoJ8

    I agree with you not as a strategy to divide but as a constitutional matter.  The citizenry of the States should be left to decide how they want their health care organized.  It's something States should already be doing.  Social programs are more accountable the closer they are to the people.

    •  The division was intended towards insurance comps (0+ / 0-)

      They would have to lobby exponentially more politicians if they had to fight 50 states instead of DC.

      Obama - Talk to Timothy Stoltzfus Jost...he seems to know more than you do.

      by JerichoJ8 on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 11:04:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm pretty sure the insurance industry (0+ / 0-)

        already lobbies at the state level.  I doubt they'd have to spend that much more than they already are at the state level, and what extra they did have to spend probably wouldn't be that much of a burden to them.

        -7.12, -7.54 / "Health care reform will never take place until Rahm Emanuel is strangled with the entrails of Frank Luntz." - Diderot

        by Big Tex on Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 01:00:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Will we taxpayers in red states (0+ / 0-)

    also get to opt out of paying for a public option that we won't be able to enjoy the benefits of?  Your idea would suck either way, but it helps to know these things.

    -7.12, -7.54 / "Health care reform will never take place until Rahm Emanuel is strangled with the entrails of Frank Luntz." - Diderot

    by Big Tex on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 11:44:19 PM PDT

    •  It's a $2 billion start up. Should your state (0+ / 0-)

      leaders successfully opt out...fuck I don't know...It's a hypothetical situation at this point.

      $2 billion divided by 50 states proportioned to their population is what for Texas?

      Obama - Talk to Timothy Stoltzfus Jost...he seems to know more than you do.

      by JerichoJ8 on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 11:51:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Your analysis is unique. (0+ / 0-)

      Obama - Talk to Timothy Stoltzfus Jost...he seems to know more than you do.

      by JerichoJ8 on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 11:56:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Unique how? (0+ / 0-)

        Why would we want to pay taxes into a government program that won't benefit us?

        -7.12, -7.54 / "Health care reform will never take place until Rahm Emanuel is strangled with the entrails of Frank Luntz." - Diderot

        by Big Tex on Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 12:18:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  1. Like you don't already for alot of your (0+ / 0-)

          neighboring states for billions more than that.

          Obama - Talk to Timothy Stoltzfus Jost...he seems to know more than you do.

          by JerichoJ8 on Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 12:22:55 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  BTW - If Texas successfully opted out, they would (0+ / 0-)

          receive their share in  subsidies to purchase insurance.

          Obama - Talk to Timothy Stoltzfus Jost...he seems to know more than you do.

          by JerichoJ8 on Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 12:27:26 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yeah, some of us (0+ / 0-)

            who have the dubious good fortune of being poor would get subsidies to buy shitty junk insurance with escalating premiums.  Lucky us.

            -7.12, -7.54 / "Health care reform will never take place until Rahm Emanuel is strangled with the entrails of Frank Luntz." - Diderot

            by Big Tex on Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 12:51:37 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You really think your state is going to throw (0+ / 0-)

              cheap insurance out the window when it's businesses who provide insurance to employees might want to sign up for it?

              Is Texas so backwards they can't see a bargain?

              They can't see how companies would migrate to where benefits were less expensive.

              Obama - Talk to Timothy Stoltzfus Jost...he seems to know more than you do.

              by JerichoJ8 on Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 08:30:19 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  This is Texas, (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                JerichoJ8

                the state that passed legislation regulating the content of cheerleading routines.  Yes, I do in fact think Texas is that backwards.

                -7.12, -7.54 / "Health care reform will never take place until Rahm Emanuel is strangled with the entrails of Frank Luntz." - Diderot

                by Big Tex on Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 03:47:51 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  What if this was the only way to get it passed - (0+ / 0-)

      would you deny others the opportunity to buy govt administered health insurance?

      Obama - Talk to Timothy Stoltzfus Jost...he seems to know more than you do.

      by JerichoJ8 on Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 12:01:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  What you're proposing (0+ / 0-)

        would make it less likely, not moreso, to get it passed.  And it would have the added "benefit" of seriously pissing off a lot of progressive voters in red states, at a time when we in Texas are 2 votes away from retaking a majority in the Texas House right before redistricting and have a realistic chance of getting Kay Bailey Hutchison's senate seat.  It's bad enough that you guys ignore us most of the time down here, unless it's primary season and the Democratic presidential nomination is still in play.  Doing something this foolish is even worse.

        -7.12, -7.54 / "Health care reform will never take place until Rahm Emanuel is strangled with the entrails of Frank Luntz." - Diderot

        by Big Tex on Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 12:16:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  "you guys' really? So - your state would be (0+ / 0-)

          unlikely to opt out if it's turning that progressive.

          Obama - Talk to Timothy Stoltzfus Jost...he seems to know more than you do.

          by JerichoJ8 on Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 12:20:39 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It's not turning progressive, (0+ / 0-)

            it's turning purple.  And at the moment, it's a reddish shade of purple.  And bear in mind that elected Democrats in Texas aren't as progressive as elected Democrats in other states.

            If it's up to our state legislature and governor to get a public option down here, it's not happening any time soon.

            -7.12, -7.54 / "Health care reform will never take place until Rahm Emanuel is strangled with the entrails of Frank Luntz." - Diderot

            by Big Tex on Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 12:48:17 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  No friends on Powder Days (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JerichoJ8

    Click on the CBO study linked here.

    The answer is simple.  Places with good or at least passable skiing have lower health care costs.

    Sorry, Old Confederacy, southern California and Mainland Michigan; you're hosed.

  •  States already have their own health care plans (0+ / 0-)

    And any state can have a public option as part of that.  It doesn't need Federal legislation.  So what you're basically proposing is nothing at all.

    They don't call August the silly season for nothing. Cup of tea?

    by TruthOfAngels on Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 05:21:24 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site