An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

Reid Makes It Official: It’s the Opt-Out Public Option

I really didn’t think the old geezer had it in him:

The Senate health care legislation will include a government-run insurance plan, but states would be allowed to “opt out” of it, the majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, announced Monday afternoon.

Pres. Obama, who has been playing it very coy about committing to any kind of public option, declared his support for Sen. Reid, saying through White House channels that he is “pleased that the Senate has decided to include a public option for health coverage, in this case with an allowance for states to opt out.”

As a political strategy, this is win-win for Reid, says Ezra Klein:

Politico reports that a weekend whip count turned up 56 or 57 votes, though the bigger question is whether Reid can count on 60 votes to close down a filibuster. If he can’t, then, as Chris Frates says, he’ll at least be able to say he tried[.]
[...]
This accomplishes two things for Reid. First, as Frates’s unnamed lobbyist points out, he can lose this vote but credibly claim that he went to bat for a pretty good compromise on the public option. Second, it creates consequences for those who want to vote against the public option. Rather than killing the proposal in a back room, moderates who won’t vote for cloture will actually have to vote against cloture. That makes them a target in their next election, and ensures a lot of harassment from the left. Reid is, in other words, making it harder — not impossible, but harder — for them to oppose the public option. Procedurally, it’s a big win for public option advocates.

Jon Walker at Firedoglake goes over the “When, How, Who, and What” of the opt-out public option.

Mitch McConnell, of course, can’t say that he doesn’t give a flipping farthing for what most Americans want, so he lies:

“Wholly aside from the debate over whether the government gets into the insurance business, the core of the proposal is a bill that the American public clearly does not like, and doesn’t support,” said Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell.

Alex Koppelman makes the Pinnocchio call:

That’s not actually true — depending on how the question is phrased, polls show a majority of voters still do like the plan, and it’s gotten more popular since the summer.

  • JSpencer
    I've seen many polls on the public option and (with some exceptions) most of them do indicate support for the idea. Also I agree the opt out provision would only make sense if all states were required to try the public option for a period of time before being allowed to opt out. Doesn't it make sense to let the citizens in a citizen government have their preferences represented, rather than the special interests? I believe that is called a representative democracy... or some such wild and crazy thing.
  • shannonlee
    Opt out?? Hmmm...anyone else seeing a major population migration in the making?
  • elrod
    Baucus is solidly behind this bill. And it seems Conrad is in too. Nelson, Landrieu, Lincoln and Lieberman are the question marks.
  • Leonidas
    So, if State are being given an opt out, why the need for a federal bill? Why not have the States make their own bills? Nothing has prevented this, and it has been done is a couple of States. The States have the power to pass this and the power to pool their resources if other like-minded states choose to do so. There is absolutely no need for the federal government to be involved in this.

    What about an opt out provision for individuals, where if they opt out they pay less taxes, rather than involuntarily fund a service they wont use?
  • kathykattenburg
    Lieberman won't vote for it. Too much insurance money weighing down his campaign coffers.
  • Davebo
    What about an opt out provision for individuals, where if they opt out they pay less taxes, rather than involuntarily fund a service they wont use?


    Just stick with your current insurance. Simple.

    Hey, I wanted to "opt out" of a 100 billion dollar per year war of choice but no one listened.

    And universal health care is cheaper than that boondoggle.
  • Don Quijote
    What about an opt out provision for individuals, where if they opt out they pay less taxes, rather than involuntarily fund a service they wont use?


    Fine by just as long as it's put on their driver's license and other official IDs so that when they have a heart attack or an accident, the medics can check said IDs and leave them to die on the side of the road.

    Oh, and none of this "oops I just lost my job and my health policy that went with it , now I want into the system", you opt out, you're on your own permanently... Tough Sh*t...
  • kathykattenburg
    Hey, I wanted to "opt out" of a 100 billion dollar per year war of choice but no one listened.

    You know, I thought of saying exactly that, but decided it would fall on deaf ears. Which doesn't mean I'm not glad that *you* said it.
  • DLS
    "Hmmm...anyone else seeing a major population migration in the making?"

    You're already on to what I reported already, in the broader context. This gives the Demmies in DC their political cover (more so than bogus-R Snowe and a fake "bi-partisan" label nobody of value respects). What it also does is put political pressure on the states to comply (which is what you've grasped). People need to think(!) about what states might now do -- choose to participate, or choose not to (i.e., to withdraw from a federal system). What are the consequences of withdrawal? Criticism of a "race to the bottom" by whiny childish leftists will promptly happen, but what else, what important consequences, as well? What about the concern and resentment that states who participate will become "welfare magnets," and will demand assistance and even restitution from the other states (which is extremist, but not inconceivable)? Think in particular of what it means for the first states, or the first large states, that might choose to withdraw.
  • DLS
    "Just stick with your current insurance. Simple."

    Assuming your insurance will remain, which there's no guarantee it will, any more than you'll keep your doctor, two lies aimed at the stupid by ObamaCo in order to allay intelligent concern about a takeover.
  • DLS
    "So, if State are being given an opt out, why the need for a federal bill? Why not have the States make their own bills?"

    That's for grown-ups, which has no applicability given the nature of what Washington's doing, and on behalf of whom.

    There never was a need for federal intervention of any kind. The federalist (normal American) solution, if government were to be involved at all, would lie with state if not fully local governments. That includes real reform, not to mention what is being sought instead, a federal (government) takeover of health care.
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC