After Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's big public option opt-out reveal yesterday, the major players are looking pretty unified.
Check out all the reactions we posted at TPMLiveWire yesterday and see what they have in common, as Senate leadership, progressives and advocacy groups appear to be rallying behind the new strategy.
Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) was singing a different tune, reminding everyone in a statement that "I included a public option in the health reform blueprint I released nearly one year ago."
MoveOn, which was asking members to pressure Obama last week, is now shifting gears to make sure the Democratic Party gets in line and votes to block a filibuster.
Health Care for America Now was championing Reid for "standing up" and doing the right thing, collecting more than 20,000 signatures on a thank-you petition to the leader.
Progressive Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) portrayed the opt-out plan in political terms, suggesting in his statement he was confident states would side with families, not insurance companies.
What about the conservative Democrats? We spoke with several offices over the last few days who all said their bosses favored a trigger or opt-out approach. Today when members gather for their caucus lunches they are likely to further show their cards.
Even the Republicans are on the same page with their opposition, calling it government-run before Reid even announced the plan.
We'll get a better sense of where the House Democrats are today, but early reactions were warm. Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-SC) said on MSNBC last night he was encouraged by Reid's play.
"Progressives are going to be very very pleased with this," he said.

TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com

Steve LaBonne
October 27, 2009 8:52 AM
It's nice for once to see a compromise that basically throws the right to the wolves (since it's hard to envision too many states really opting out) instead of the usual kind that sells out the left. Nice work all around. Caution, though- it will not be time for progressives to let up on the pressure until a good bill is actually sitting on the President's desk.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jolly ranchero
October 27, 2009 9:11 AM in reply to Steve LaBonne
Exactly. Nothing has actually been passed yet. The Republican noise machine is about to go to 11. I'm not going to congratulate or thank anyone yet until Obama's ink is dry on his sig, as the Dems have a long history of capitulating to the Repubs and negotiating against themselves.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
impik
October 27, 2009 9:23 AM
I really love this Opt-Out thing. I want to see what Red State will dare to do so. Once people in those states see what they're missing, they'll start screaming.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
joseph
October 27, 2009 9:54 AM in reply to impik
Couldn't agree more. It puts the burden of improving the system on the very politicians who most deserve to carry it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
El Puerco
October 27, 2009 10:55 AM in reply to impik
Don't forget Texas!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JohnAH
October 27, 2009 9:25 AM
I'm not crazy about the opt out idea in practice but if it passes then at least we'll have it; my concern is that they also have a provision in the bill that would limit access to the Public Option to only those without insurance. The option should be available to anyone who wants it and honestly if it's a good plan then I'd love to opt in to it and take my money back from the private insurance companies; but with the current Senate bill; I won't be allowed to do that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
October 27, 2009 9:33 AM in reply to JohnAH
Have to options to people who don't like their insurance company. If not, it's a farce.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fse
October 27, 2009 10:24 AM in reply to Overreach THIS!
If you don't like your insurance company, stop paying them (or tell your employer to stop paying them). Voila. You're uninsured.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
October 27, 2009 3:33 PM in reply to fse
Yeah, there is that. But I don't think it will be that extreme. You know, though, that the insurance companies are burning up the telephones and everything else to everybody they can get to filibuster this. There's not much of a margin of safety.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
October 27, 2009 9:48 AM in reply to JohnAH
I agree but I don't believe that the public option was ever going to be for people who already had insurance but only for the uninsured. Maybe it will evolve into that. I guess we have to wait to see what the bill says and then there is the House version.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
October 27, 2009 9:59 AM in reply to lousgirl84
Exactly. What can be achieved, and must be achieved, right now is to get a foot in the door- that's why the inclusion of even a compromised public option is so crucial. From there the pressure to force the door wide open can, and I think will, gradually build until it becomes irresistible. Certainly the behavior of the insurance companies is showing how much they fear that scenario.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed- ley
October 27, 2009 11:20 AM in reply to lousgirl84
You're correct: the public option is to be limited to those who don't already have private insurance and can't get it affordably. It was never intended to be an option for everyone. The GOP/insurance companies are fighting it tooth and nail to avoid setting a foot-in-the-door precedent that provides a basis for expansion that will allow everyone else to have a real choice.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tim
October 27, 2009 11:01 AM in reply to JohnAH
"Half argued for four dreadnoughts, half argued for six. In the event, we compromised at eight." - Winston Churchill. (Paraphrased from memory)
Well, it's not over yet.
Here's the thing - you may already be noticing this trend - the reform package is becoming increasingly more liberal as it approaches fruition.
There are several reasons for that. One is the more liberal, the more practical - especially in terms of cost.
Another reason has to do with game theory. Any reform that includes public option creates a slippery slope for the health insurance companies that ultimately leads to single payer down the road. Game theory teaches that, if you see the end coming, even if it's many moves from now it pays to start acting uncivilly immediately.
What that means, in the dance between the Health Care Insurance Lobby and the Legislators, the legislators see the death coming for the companies. So, they've already moved on. Even Baucus. He was happy to take their money. He gave them a good effort. But it didn't work out. One reason is failure to reform health care would cook the economies goose for good. There are many more industries that bribe the Senators, and they aren't going to cook all those other gold egg laying gooses and bribe givers, to protect one gold egg laying goose in the health care industry. In essence, the health care industry would have had to out bribe the entire rest of the economy, and hope there was no popular uprising from a gun toting public, to avoid reform that puts them on the slippery slope towards extinction.
In my mind, the public option was all kabuki theater - the Health Care Industry could never win without the rest of the country losing (and possibly being destroyed). They bribed the senators. They did their level best. Put single payer off to the side.
But now that the kabuki dance is just about over, you can look to possibly see ever more liberal ideas slipping into the ultimate bill. Especially once things get past cloture. And then there's reconciliation. It's not entirely impossible that we ended up with "Medicare for All" or something like that. After all, Edwardian England ended up with eight Dreadnoughts.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DownriverDem
October 27, 2009 11:34 AM in reply to Tim
Liberal ideas. I love it!!!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mr.E.
October 27, 2009 12:29 PM in reply to Tim
Well said.
Minimum wage, SCHIP, worker's comp. Medicare itself was opt-out originally.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jah627
October 27, 2009 9:32 AM
Go Harry! Good news is simply good news.
Now, how about a Jobs Bill?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ohyeathatsright
October 27, 2009 9:33 AM
The more I read about the opt-out option, the more I like it. I really don't see a reason why any state (except maybe SC) would decide to opt out. To that point, I haven't read anything about the benefits of opting-out. I'm assuming that there is a tax benefit to not accepting the federal money, anyone have any ideas about what that may be?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tim
October 27, 2009 11:15 AM in reply to ohyeathatsright
I wouldn't count chickens before they are hatched.
Remember the law of unintended consequences.
Well the health insurance industry lobby will have to retool and reorganize to pick off state legislatures one by one. Fortunately for them, State governments are notoriously corrupt, fly below much of the media radar, and their politicians are easier to buy.
They could concentrate on red states where buying a legislature is low hanging fruit, or states where they already have monopoly power. It's theoretical that they could buy legislatures in some states, forcing the entire public to buy from health insurance monopolies in those states.
The net effect is they could end up with the same or even greater profits in those states where they will pull down monopoly rents from a population forced to buy from them - making up for some of the profits lost in 'blue' states. And depending upon the final law, the people buying public option might be limited to only those people who they don't sell to now anyway. In other words, no lost market share even in the blue states that don't opt out.
Those states populace won't blame their legislators, instead they'll blame the federal govenrment and want to succeed from the union.
I don't know if this will happen. It's just I'm not aware of any precedent, and one has to be mindful of the law of unintended consequences.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
garp
October 27, 2009 11:27 AM in reply to ohyeathatsright
I live in GA, and I can say with some confidence that the state will "opt out". But I think another poster suggested what I see as a possible future here. It has the potential not only to reshape health care, but the political landscape as well, as voters in states dominated by the party of no start voting for Democrats in order to avail themselves of the public option.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Seafarer
October 27, 2009 4:17 PM in reply to garp
This is what the GOP is most terrified of.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 27, 2009 9:49 AM
What is the public option that Reid has given us?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
willia451
October 27, 2009 10:49 AM in reply to Indie Pro
Its a level playing field "negotiated rates" "PO" with an "Opt Out" clause for the states, that may or may not be administered by HHS, and the only folks that will be able to "choose" the "option" are those without insurance today.
Yeah, I know. Sucks.
But it is what it is. Looks like we're going to be lucky to get even that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DownriverDem
October 27, 2009 10:57 AM in reply to willia451
It's only the begining. We have to get a toe hold to start on the road to single payer. Keep the faith.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 27, 2009 11:11 AM in reply to willia451
if it is the HELP version, the CBO claims it will have no effect on Premiums. It will not bring down costs.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 27, 2009 11:13 AM in reply to willia451
hey, and do you have a link for that? Not being cheeky, I keep searching on the details and come up short.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Odel Roo
October 27, 2009 9:52 AM
Does anybody really think the opt-out is a big deal? Oh ya... it "basically throws the right to the wolves". Really? Really?
There is a majority already... you really think this is gonna bring em in like a pig call at feeding time?
It's just amazing to me... we push for health care reform... we say we want competition... to get that competition we need a large pool of people to keep cost down/competitive so hey... let make everybody pay! And if they don't like it then we can either fine them or throw em in the pokey (were they will get HC for free... go figure). So we cheer the great accomplishment that 10% might get it... and it's a bargain at 900 billion+.
As I posted earlier...
I guess i'm being cynical... I should not have expected this much from these precious anointed few. After working a blistering 3 day work week im sure this is the best they can come up with. We sure are lucky to have them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DownriverDem
October 27, 2009 10:59 AM in reply to Odel Roo
Check your history. Social Security and Medicare were not in the present form they are now. They were changed. This is the beginning of getting single payer down the road.
Look at it that way and be happy!!!!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NitPicker1
October 27, 2009 10:04 AM
Ok, this is slightly off-topic, but how exactly does one get to the TPMLiveWire page on a day-to-day basis, besides finding a link to an individual TPMLIveWire story that has been promoted elsewhere on the site, and then clicking on the LiveWire heading to see what else is there?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Odel Roo
October 27, 2009 10:39 AM in reply to NitPicker1
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NitPicker1
October 27, 2009 1:31 PM in reply to Odel Roo
Yes, I know, I actually do have it bookmarked so I can find it myself, at least when I'm using my own computer.
But there's no link to the LiveWire section from anywhere outside the the LiveWire section. Just links to individual stories.
Not on the front page, not on the navigation bar, nowhere...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bnad
October 27, 2009 10:31 AM
I think opting out at the state level will be safer politically than people think. The public option is restricted to the otherwise uninsured (poor, unemployed) and will be unavailable to the vast majority of voters. In state level debate, opting out will be portrayed as denying the poor a government handout. That will play well in the red states.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DownriverDem
October 27, 2009 10:55 AM in reply to Bnad
Not just the poor, unemployed folks who vote would be really ticked off. I don't see states telling their citizens that they can't have health care. This could be a win win for the Dems.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
xargaw
October 27, 2009 10:36 AM
Now, just make it a real "option" so that everyone has the option of the PO regardless of whether they are currently insured or not.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kash79
October 27, 2009 10:46 AM
It is not the advocacy groups or Moveon who changed tunes, it is the democratic representatives in the Senate after consistent efforts from the progressive grass roots.
For one, thankfully, Reid had displayed a character, out of his normal tune.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DownriverDem
October 27, 2009 10:53 AM
I want to see what happens when a state opts out and folks live on the border of a state that doesn't opt out. I can see folks using opt in addresses in order to get health care for their family. Let's hope any state that opts out will anger those who live in those states to the point that they throw them out of office. I just can't imagine a governor or state legislature telling its citizens that "no, you can't have health care".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
leoklein
October 27, 2009 11:02 AM
Was the Public Option really as dead as the mainstream media (and even here recently on TPM) have been making out?
Or was this yet another example of 'He-said-She-said' journamalism where the reality on the ground -- Dems got the votes, Dems got the votes -- was conveniently ignored so that we could hear yet more of Chuck Grassley and Olympia Snowe?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
October 27, 2009 11:14 AM in reply to leoklein
No. It wasn't dead, and it was annoying that sensationalism trumped accuracy. The two worst examples were:
1) when townhalls became freakshows of unhinged kooks and the MSM succumbed to the fantasy that those crazies somehow "speak for" the country.
2) When some ammendments got voted down in the Finance committee. Finance =/= the Senate. Supporters knew it had two more chances to be included. That's just ignorance if you get confused by the committee process.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sisterkevin
October 27, 2009 11:11 AM
This is all slight-of-hand bullshit. Read the details, when they are finalized, and I bet you'll all start screaming again. This is a way out for our reps, opt-in opt-out, a distraction at best from doing this the right way, the hard way, with a little bit of courage and lots of truth telling. Why are we even accepting this as good news? It's good news for THEM, not the citizenry. It's THEIR way out, not ours! Don't trust these bastards! And if you do watch the whole f'ing thing get dismantled over the next 3-4 years, just about the time it takes effect. This is like a f'ing TV jingle, you could put it to music, let's see:
Poor in Alabama don't pout
Gov Riley says we're gonna opt out
another poor white trash rout
no reason to pout
got no health care stout
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DownriverDem
October 27, 2009 11:31 AM in reply to sisterkevin
It may be their way out, but do you think their citizens down the road will be happy with no health insurance? Are they really that dumb in the south? How did they get so brain washed?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
obamacrat
October 27, 2009 11:20 AM
I would bet that no state opts out. Polling shows overwhelming support for any form of public option, what state will go against the wishes of its own people? This is like when the group of governors who said they would be denying the stimulus funds based on principle...then lined up and took the stimulus funds after their constiuents said 'what the hell are you doing?" If you opt out you're basically saying 1 of 2 things:
1) Health Care isn't broken
or
2) more profits for the capitalists!
I gotta say that either position is untenable in today's political climate. Just my two cent$.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DownriverDem
October 27, 2009 11:37 AM in reply to obamacrat
I like your style obamacrat! And you are so correct!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
baltimore
October 27, 2009 11:44 AM
remember Harris Wofford? he was elected Senator (beating Thornburgh) in PA yrs ago, by running on a Public Health Care platform!
let the Dems learn from this, and show some cojones now.
and if Snowe doesn't like it, let her melt in the sunshine.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TTN
October 27, 2009 1:47 PM
I just watch Maddow's show, and I am pretty worried about the news. We root for an public option, but then according to what mentioned in her show, the Reid's bill will only cover the uninsured peeps + opt out for states. How will this work? Are we getting $#@! again by the politicians? That only covers 10% of Americans, and how do we get a big pool to compete with the insurance companies? And how does the govt PO can pay for a small pool of mostly sick people that are not wanted by the insurance companies???
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TTN
October 27, 2009 1:49 PM
I just watch Maddow's show, and I am pretty worried about the news. We root for an public option, but then according to what mentioned in her show, the Reid's bill will only cover the uninsured peeps + opt out for states. How will this work? Are we getting $#@! again by the politicians? That only covers 10% of Americans, and how do we get a big pool to compete with the insurance companies? And how does the govt PO can pay for a small pool of mostly sick people that are not wanted by the insurance companies???
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
theone718
October 27, 2009 4:28 PM
The biggest flopper is Fucking Ed Schulz. JUST ON FRIDAY he called it "a cop out and Democrats running away from real reform" then on Monday he is praising Harry Reid on "showing real leadership" that was PATHETIC.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?