ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
Everyone knows I'm against obamacare but aside from the actual program - with all this talk about an "opt out" option for states, I don't get it. It reads like states can opt out of the public option but they wouldn't be opting out of adding to the national deficit so why would any states opt out of something that will be subsidized by the feds. It's like turning away "stimulus" money - you may be against the stimulus but you'd be a fool as a state to turn away the money if the feds want to give it to you.
Maybe there's something I'm missing about "opt out" but it seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
Everyone knows I'm against obamacare but aside from the actual program - with all this talk about an "opt out" option for states, I don't get it. It reads like states can opt out of the public option but they wouldn't be opting out of adding to the national deficit so why would any states opt out of something that will be subsidized by the feds. It's like turning away "stimulus" money - you may be against the stimulus but you'd be a fool as a state to turn away the money if the feds want to give it to you.
Maybe there's something I'm missing about "opt out" but it seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
First of all, its a public OPTION, you are not forced to buy what you keep calling "obamacare".
Secondly, if you and most of your state wants to keep private insurers...you can vote to OPT OUT of having the option of medicare (Obamacare in your words).
Seems to me that all you people b!tchin about "socialized Obamacare' should be pumped up about this. Instead you are now talking like Opting out is stupid?
Everyone knows I'm against obamacare but aside from the actual program - with all this talk about an "opt out" option for states, I don't get it. It reads like states can opt out of the public option but they wouldn't be opting out of adding to the national deficit so why would any states opt out of something that will be subsidized by the feds. It's like turning away "stimulus" money - you may be against the stimulus but you'd be a fool as a state to turn away the money if the feds want to give it to you.
Maybe there's something I'm missing about "opt out" but it seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
You're aware that the bill was scored by the CBO and will cut the deficit, right?
I'm not an expert and I haven't read the bill obviously, but I assume opt-out is meant to make the bill more politically palatable to conservative Democrats.
Here's Josh Marshall's explanation, for what it's worth:
Quote:
As I wrote back on the 8th, the opt-out approach isn't ideal on the policy level. It likely leaves a substantial number of Americans without the options or price benefits of a public option. But it's substantially different from triggers, state-based co-ops or opt-ins for two key reasons.
First is the issue of scale. The whole logic of the public option is that you have a big enough pool of people that you have the efficiencies and bargaining power that can hold down prices. This is why reformers have never had much patience with state-based programs or coops. If it's forty or fifty mini-public options, it pretty much defeats the whole purpose because you don't have any of the market power that allows you to negotiate favorable pricing. It's not let a hundred flowers bloom, or fifty as the case may be. You really need one big flower.
It's certainly a problem that a substantial number of Americans -- probably in red states -- would lack the public option. But by making it an opt-out rather than an opt-in, you start with a truly national program. That's the key. The default is everyone is in. Even if you had 1/3 or even, conceivably half the states (or half the total national population in however many states) you'd still have enough heft to make it have the desired effect. And presumably you'd have by far most of the population in the program.
So that's the starting point. While it's not ideal, an opt-out gives you the reality of a public option whereas the other compromises give you things that superficially sound similar but actually don't accomplish the same purpose. This was my sense of the policy dynamics when I first heard about it. And it seems to be the sense of most of the really knowledgeable health care policy types I know. So that's the policy part of it.
Equally important is the politics, however. In two key ways the 'opt-out' flipped the political dynamics entirely. A big argument from Republicans was that the public option would force people into 'government health care' or in various other ways destroy the universe. The opt-out just says: 'fine, then don't allow it in your state. Next ...' That takes a lot of the wind out of the sails of that argument. And, more pointedly, conservative and moderate Dems who were afraid of voting for the full public option seem to think that this gives them sufficient cover to vote for it -- at least for the procedural 60 vote threshold, if not for the bill itself, which will take 50 votes. But that's all that's really necessary: getting past cloture.
And there's one other part to this -- momentum in the favor of full opt-in. Just as people rail against 'government health care' and love their Medicare, there's good reason to believe that the Public Option will have been a lot scarier as a GOP straw man and a Glenn Beck temper tantrum than it will as a real world option for people who can't get private coverage. And if the public option is available in North Carolina, just to pick a hypothetical, and not South Carolina, after a while, people in the South Carolina might start to wonder what the logic was of denying them a lower cost health insurance option. And if that's true, presumably, pressure will build in the opt-out states to opt-in. So even if a substantial number of people aren't covered at the start, there's good reason to believe that will change over time.
Of course, if the public option is really a disaster, the momentum could go the other way. But that's just another way of saying that it sets up a good experiment. We'll see which states fare better and people can make their choices.
Last edited by JackBauer; 10-26-2009 at 03:54 PM..
First of all, its a public OPTION, you are not forced to buy what you keep calling "obamacare".
Secondly, if you and most of your state wants to keep private insurers...you can vote to OPT OUT of having the option of medicare (Obamacare in your words).
Seems to me that all you people b!tchin about "socialized Obamacare' should be pumped up about this. Instead you are now talking like Opting out is stupid?
I'm really not getting your point here....
That's because you support Obamacare. Most of those against it are against the COST to Americans. Many people who are middle-class don't want to have tax increases levied upon them. Especially those who are in the upper end of the middle-class.
Take an average couple earning about $150,000 annually with very good company paid insurance. "Some" might think of them as "rich" but they're really just middle class folks. I guarantee you the VAST majority of families like them do NOT want to pay more taxes...nor should they!
That's because you support Obamacare. Most of those against it are against the COST to Americans. Many people who are middle-class don't want to have tax increases levied upon them. Especially those who are in the upper end of the middle-class.
Take an average couple earning about $150,000 annually with very good company paid insurance. "Some" might think of them as "rich" but they're really just middle class folks. I guarantee you the VAST majority of families like them do NOT want to pay more taxes...nor should they!
I'll refer you to the CBO, and its report that the public option as currently represented is deficit neutral, or might even save money.
a new cost estimate of the House health care reform bill (H.R. 3200, the “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act”) by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has determined that the version of the House bill with a public option based upon Medicare payment rates would reduce the federal budget deficit over ten years by $110 billion. That’s $20 billion more in savings than earlier estimates for that kind of public option. And it would save $85 billion more than a public option in which payment rates would be negotiated with providers.
Everyone knows I'm against obamacare but aside from the actual program - with all this talk about an "opt out" option for states, I don't get it. It reads like states can opt out of the public option but they wouldn't be opting out of adding to the national deficit so why would any states opt out of something that will be subsidized by the feds. It's like turning away "stimulus" money - you may be against the stimulus but you'd be a fool as a state to turn away the money if the feds want to give it to you.
Maybe there's something I'm missing about "opt out" but it seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
I think the public option will be deficit neutral in the sense that it will operate on a break even basis. This still means the government has to find a way to help people pay for the plan (or any other plan if private insurance companies can match it). A state will opt out if they don't want to force their residents to use a private plan. This will make sense only if private plans offer competitive pricing, and I don't think anyone knows exactly how this will play out. Allowing the states to opt out is a clever political gimmick only if private insurance companies can't find a way to compete with the public option. If they cannot do that, then a state would be foolish not to give their citizens the choice. What's not clear is how much ramp-up money the public option will get.
a new cost estimate of the House health care reform bill (H.R. 3200, the “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act”) by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has determined that the version of the House bill with a public option based upon Medicare payment rates would reduce the federal budget deficit over ten years by $110 billion. That’s $20 billion more in savings than earlier estimates for that kind of public option. And it would save $85 billion more than a public option in which payment rates would be negotiated with providers.
where are you getting your 'facts'?
I was explaining how many people feel about gov't health care and the fears they have about it. I've seen supposed facts that support it would add billions to our deficit as well as facts that support it would be neutral.
__________________ "No one walking this earth knows what is truly righteous"
I was explaining how many people feel about gov't health care and the fears they have about it. I've seen supposed facts that support it would add billions to our deficit as well as facts that support it would be neutral.
Love how you are backing up your fear with things you have seen...yet don't post them.
I'll go with the Congressional Budget Office, and the published report they gave to congress.
a new cost estimate of the House health care reform bill (H.R. 3200, the “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act”) by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has determined that the version of the House bill with a public option based upon Medicare payment rates would reduce the federal budget deficit over ten years by $110 billion. That’s $20 billion more in savings than earlier estimates for that kind of public option. And it would save $85 billion more than a public option in which payment rates would be negotiated with providers.
where are you getting your 'facts'?
Dude, it won't save money. It will cost money. The fact that we're adding more taxes than the more than $1 Trillion cost is a statement on how much extra tax is being added.
I don't get this "Opt Out" thing
Linear Mode
