I think an opt-out would be a good compromise. I think it will be difficult, to say the least, to get all but the most nutwing of states to actually opt out.

While this might mean people in South Carolina and Oklahoma will be screwed, it might serve a more beneficial purpose of demonstrating the economic value of a public option.

210 votes - latest Progressive Caucus count for robust public option

O.k have an opt-out, I have no problem with that. But only if the congress and senate make it so the public option is medicare for all and nothing less than that. Then the states can decide if they want to opt out of that.

This is awesome news.

A strong public option with an "opt out" clause guarantees Republican disarray. It guarantees anyone who votes against it is going to look really stupid to the voters. Contrary to the image the Republicans tend to project, they really aren't that stupid.

Bravo Schumer. Maybe your best move ever.

I'm fine with an opt-out. An opt-in or a trigger would be a disaster. Triggers are kicking it down the road indefinitely, and Opt-In requires proactive action to participate. This is a compromise that in the end won't matter because no state will ultimately opt-out and -- as a long shot if they do -- it would be a year or two at most. Because state legislators would have to take PROACTIVE ACTION to deny their people choices...

That may be less than ideal for those states who have total wingnut Governors and legislatures -- but they voted them in and they can vote them out. In fact, politically its brilliant because it has the potential to actually break the back of a lot of the more extreme wingnut factions of the Republican Party.

But remember:

- Medicare as originally passed -- to get it through -- was opt-out. How many states don't have Medicare now? Zero.

- For all their grandstanding about not taking it, what did Gov. "No Stimulus!" Jindal and Rick "Secession!" Perry do? Oh, yeah... bellied up to the trough. That's because:

- Republican state legislators aren't going to be as willing to fall on their sword for the ideology. And they'll feel the heat from their local constituency if they turn it down. If not immediately (most likely as there is widespread support even in red states), then when they figure out they are getting reamed vs. their neighbor states. Might even wash some of the crazy from their party.

- It'll drive prices down because with the outside possibility of Texas, none of the biggest pop. states, nor the entire NE/Midwest/Pacific West states will opt out. That's a huge pool. And again, it'll be a short term opt-out.

- Even for the theoretical state that initially turns it down -- drive down prices. Because AFLAC will know that the PO is just a vote away in that state, surrounded by PO states. If it works, prices are lower in the rest of the U.S., and that's a Sword of Damacles hanging over the insurers.

(Sigh)

Well, I guess we'll start packing up to move.

Anyone want to recommend his or her state? Will tolerate some cold weather for good fine arts access.

Of course there a 'sense of freedom'... it pushes this health care fight out for every state to have to continue.

Without a true public option that cuts costs and is available to 'all' Americans they can take their mandate and shove it!

I am sick of all of the gimmicks it's just disgusting.

I can guarantee that if Reid throws us Progressives unfortunate enough to live in red states under the bus, we will actively campaign against him.

Not a threat -- a promise.

Opt-out itself should have a trigger, as Weiner suggested: all states are in for three years THEN any winger governor or legislature who wants to 'opt out' can tell their voters why. I predict no state will do it. Just like the stimulus bitchery ... they screamed 'socialism, but all took the money and bragged about it on top of that.

OK. If there is an Opt out included in the bill, then for a state to opt out should require a public vote. It's the public who gets hurt by not getting access to Medicare Part E.

Here in Texas the State Legislature will approve an opt out and force it down the throats of the people. Making it a decision that requires a public vote would then bring all the voters who need it out to fight to stay in the pubic option.

If the only way to get a strong public option is to allow the former slave states to opt out, so be it.

People in those states may wish to contact their own state's elected officials, rather than whining about other states.

I can't believe that he's backing out of the public option. He's not backing out of the public option.

Opt out is fine. But as many have suggested, there ARE moral concerns. Most of the states that are likely to "opt out" contain huge proportions of their populations that need reform the most (working poor; lower middle class; disenfranchised; powerless).

Are we really willing to throw these people under the bus, tap an individual mandate on top of their asses, and give them NO PO to fall back on? In effect, throwing millions into the pit?

I'm ok with it, if its the only way to get it done.

But it smells a little like Katrina to me.

I can't figure this out, but it definitely seems to me that "opt-out" is just the public option (whatever that may be) plus the added political bonus of daring the Retardicans and Blue Dog Republocrats to "opt-out" at their own political peril.

Something is better than nothing. At least with some kind of public option we have something to build on.