That’s the policy side of the equation. For the political calculus, the ability for states to opt out would deflate some of the 10th Amendment\/government take over\/death panel freak show and give conservative Democrats enough breathing room to come on board. And a number of key conservative Dems as well as liberals seemed to warm to the idea.<\/strong> <\/font><\/p>\n Over the course of the day though it became clear that none of the key power centers — not the White House or the Dem leadership in either chamber — seemed at all interested. From some of the leadership sources we spoke to, the idea seemed to be: ‘Sure, interesting idea. And a lot of people are talking about it. But it’s just not on the radar for the leadership. So why are we talking about this?’<\/font><\/p>\n I confess that something did sound a little off to me about the proposition that differing factions agreeing on one palatable policy option was irrelevant since it’s not what the leadership is focused on. Especially because I’m not sure the leadership has inspired a great deal of confidence in their ability to pilot this ship to port. But that’s one clear part of the equation.<\/font><\/p>\n Another issue is just what votes such a compromise would secure. If 3\/4 loaf doesn’t secure more votes or enough votes more, you might as well stick with a whole loaf. And this issue just isn’t clear yet. Republicans have made clear that they’ll oppose any form of public option, indeed likely any reform bill at all<\/strong>. So you’re still working with 60 Democrats and potentially Olympia Snowe to get to 60. Some seem to think you still can’t get to 60 with this. But that’s their line.<\/font><\/p>\n Then there’s the issue of people in opting-out states — a point about which we’ve received many emails today. <\/font><\/p>\n The general assumption is that the opt-out states would be heavily red, disproportionately small in population and centered in the Mountain West and the South. And a number of people from these states wrote in today saying, Why is this such a great idea if it leaves me high and dry<\/strong>? It’s a good question. And I think there’s a decent issue of principle at stake in reform being national. We didn’t do opt-outs for Medicare or Civil Rights (we’ll okay, for a while, but not eventually) or Social Security (labor laws provide something of a counter-example). So why now? 10th Amendment gonzos notwithstanding, we are a national community, one people. So if reform is needed it should be for everyone… [emphasis added<\/em>]<\/font><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Inserted from <TPM<\/a>><\/p>\n On the surface it sounds like a great idea, but I agree with the author\u2019s premise that everyone needs reform.<\/p>\n Also, consider, if you will the following progression. As national health care goes into effect, the reddest of red states opt out as anticipated. People driven into poverty because they lack health care in those states migrate to neighboring states that offer the public option. Those people apply for state aid in those neighboring states, driving up the cost of state government there. The GOP floods those states with tea party patriots<\/em> to strike fear into residents there that the only way to save their states from this hoard of undesirable (that is black or brown) people is to elect Republican candidates. Their fear tactics work, and the newly elected Republicans opt out. This process repeats itself until the Republicans have control of the new whiter South. Before you dismiss this projection, remember that for all the bubba jokes<\/em>, Republicans are consummate masters at screwing their own constituents, while making them believe it\u2019s the Democrats\u2019 fault.<\/p>\n I suppose I\u2019d choose this plan over no public option at all, but do not want to abandon all the good people, such as our friend Mad Mike, who already suffer having to live under the cloud of red state mania.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" In their latest attempt to compromise on the public option, Senators Carper and Schumer are proposing a public option that gives individual states the choice to opt out. Having taken the read of some of the shrewder health care policy nerds, it seems that the Carper\/Schumer Public Option ‘opt-out’ compromise may really be a winner […]<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-114","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-politics","category-5-id","post-seq-1","post-parity-odd","meta-position-corners","fix"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/114","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=114"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/114\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=114"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=114"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=114"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}![\"health-insurance\"](\"http:\/\/s217.photobucket.com\/albums\/cc83\/TomCat1948or2\/Blog%202009\/OptforOptOut_31E4\/healthinsurance.jpg\" "\\"health-insurance\\"")
<\/a> Having taken the read of some of the shrewder health care policy nerds, it seems that the Carper\/Schumer Public Option ‘opt-out’ compromise may really be a winner in policy terms. As I tentatively argued this morning, it would seem to get you a sufficiently large and nationally based plan that would provide the negotiating leverage that is the key to a successful public option. And, again, assuming the plan worked as advertised in the ‘in’ states, there’d be growing political pressure for the hold out states to come on board. <\/font><\/p>\n