Reid also rejected the idea of a trigger, which had been advanced by Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME).

Do Reps have to bring guns into everything?

Seriously, I actually agree with Reid's logic about opt-out being significantly better than opt-in. In terms of legislative compromise, specifically, who does this bring along that would otherwise have balked?

Regardless of what comes out of Congress regarding health care/insurance reform Americans will enjoy benefits that will fall considerably short of what other more socially advanced and humane nations have. Of course, Democrats will put a smiley face on this and say it is a step forward. True. But before we become jubilant and pop the champagne, let's keep our eye on the ultimate goal. Something on a par with what France, Italy, other Western European nations, and Japan and Taiwan now have. That's will take many more steps than this first out of the senate.

We're watching, listening, moving and shaking, Kari. Small business owners are pushing for a stronger version as the bills come to the floor of both houses.

But commendations all around to the senators who crafted a bill that at least includes the framework for a strong public option.

Will gender re-assignment surgery be covered under the free public option? I make about $35K a year and would like to become 'Stacey'.

Most of us public option supporters aren't going to be thrilled by a public option that has only about 10 million people, let alone one that has even fewer people because red states are opting out. Let the people into the public option. Don't exclude us!

"I'm actually kind of surprised that we're not seeing more excitement from the public option advocates that have been filling our comment threads for months. Where did y'all disappear to?"

Maybe they're waiting to read the fine print.

Kari, If the Dems pull this off, I will be the first to apologize for my snarky attitude. I'm encouraged but I've been hurt before. I'm encouraged but let's not celebrate too soon. Politicians have a propensity for self-congratulation and symbolic acts. "At least we tried" will not work this time. If anything the Dems should realize they have to deliver here or they're going to take a ton of blame. However meaningful healthcare reform with a public option would prove that America is on the way back from the hideous Bush years. Not just back but...improving. Imagine that concept. Imagine the case the Dems could take to the voters. From an election standpoint it is such a no-brainer that - in an ironic way - it serves to illustrate the disastrous grip the corporations have on Congress. Public option could be passed DESPITE being something the American People want.

 Uh oh, there goes the snarkiness again. Let's be more positive:

   Next: President Obama announces that our participation in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is over.
   Then we reform and regulate the financial sector so it can't be used to destroy us - as it is currently set up to do. 
   Finally, we proceed to the trial of Richard Cheney and George W for crimes against humanity.
  And if some young genius out there comes up with a new clean energy system that replaces fossil fuels, well, that  would be cool too.

"If the Dems pull this off,..."

The vote on this issue will say a lot about the Democratic Party.

Hard to find details about this proposal. Aside from the opt out clause (goodbye Mississippi) exactly who can purchase insurance in the public option plan? Can I pound the conference table tomorrow and tell Blue Cross they either cut my corporate rates by 15% or we take our business to the public option plan? I don't think so. Anybody have a link to the actual language of the bill?

Kari, I'm excited. I thought somehow, as frustrating and dysfunctional as the Senate is, they would find a way to get this done. I actually think the opt-out is a piece of political genius, as it puts the onus on the Rs to turn down a vital public benefit to their own constituents, while at the same time giving political cover to the blue dog scaredy cats and fence sitters.

Anyone want to start a betting pool of which states will opt out? Oklahoma's a pretty sure bet.

Posted by: Stu | Oct 26, 2009 4:49:18 PM

Will gender re-assignment surgery be covered under the free public option? I make about $35K a year and would like to become 'Stacey'.

It is in the Netherlands, and they suffer none of the evils that have been used to proclaim that the US can't have quality health care.

One worries about a "Zurich Central Park" effect. They tried a more progressive drug policy, and it became a unmanageable ghetto, because the surrounding areas didn't "opt-in".

One could imagine states like Wyoming, Utah and Nevada deciding that they really don't want anyone that can't pay their own way. The riff-raff can move to California, Washington, and Oregon. And the un-insured may well vote with their feet, Ms. Mel.

In the old west you sometimes had to have a "grubstake" before entering an area, so that you didn't become stranded and require any kind of public assistance.

Could this be the beginning of a 21st century grubstake? Oh, look, the sponsor is from Nevada. Just an observation. No Hyperactive CTG Syndrome, here, Kari!

Kari - Quit once again pimping for your client Wyden and his re-election.

In typical Wyden fashion, as with so many issues, people cannot be allowed to forget that he has done nothing to fight for the public option to this point. The only question right now is what is he doing to put the heat on wavering Democrats and Olympia Snowe to get the 60 votes to stop a DEMOCRATIC filibuster. Because that's what we are actually facing, not a Republican filibuster.

Here's a little something else to remind people just how little credit, and in fact how much criticism, Wyden actually deserves:

Expressing a preference for the public option is not the same as fighting for the public option. Telling Harry Reid "good luck with that" is not the same as the president saying, "I am there helping Reid fight for those final votes."

Ron Wyden has been even less of a genuine advocate for the public option than the President, so this statement says exactly why we have to keep the pressure on Wyden --- and why he deserves zero credit unless and until he is out there putting withering public heat on Democrats and Republicans who would support the Democratic filibuster.

Kari:

Uh, Mr. Heat -- while accusing me of "pimping" Ron Wyden, I'll merely note that you're the first one on this thread to mention his name.

Just how stupid are you Kari that you lie as badly as Rush Limbaugh?:

(just a few million Americans, or all Americans - as Senator Ron Wyden wants?);

You are being betrayed, just as on Iraq, Afghanistan, climate change, bailouts for the rich, torture, etc.

Basic coverage under the proposals before Congress would provide an actuarial value of 65% or 70%. That means that the patients would be responsible for the remaining 30% or 35% of health care costs, although the proposals would limit the total amount for which the patients are responsible under the plans. Patients also would be responsible for out-of-network services and for services and products not covered by their plans.

If there is a cap on out-of-pocket spending, then why should the precise actuarial value make difference? Simply, the lower the actuarial value, the greater the likelihood that the patient will have to spend the full amount up to the cap. Thus more individuals will be negatively impacted. Also, the amount of the cap makes a very big difference. The proposed caps on out-of-pocket spending, when added to the patient's share of the premium, create a financial hardship for most low and middle income individuals and families.

Members of Congress are particularly concerned about the high costs for those at income levels wherein the subsidies supporting the premiums are phased out. Not only do they understand that making health care unaffordable is not wise policy, but they also understand the backlash that would likely occur when the most productive sector of our society finds out what hit them.

The report from the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities demonstrates how desperate our legislators are to find a way out of this highly flawed financing proposal that hits their base supporters the hardest. To soften the impact on middle income individuals and families, they are investigating a proposal to increase the amounts that low income families would have to pay, even though they already can't pay the current levels proposed. Perhaps they calculate that, at election time, bankrupting individuals without a political voice is a safer than facing a backlash from the base supporters. (http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/quote-of-the-day)

Stop your secular mystical derangement.

The public option is in until it fails cloture, then it will be out again.

And if it's out again, the question I have is whether the lefty D's will sabotage the whole thing in a fit of pique.

"And if it's out again, the question I have is whether the lefty D's will sabotage the whole thing in a fit of pique."

What's left to sabotage? At best this so-called reform looks more like a band-aid for somebody on crutches.

"The House Dem leadership has conducted its preliminary whip count and has tallied up less than 200 likely Yes votes in support of a health care reform bill with a robust public option, well short of the 218 needed for passage."

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/health-care/exclusive-robust-public-option-lacks-votes-to-pass-house-internal-whip-count-document-shows/

No universal health care. No public insurance option. Not out of Iraq. Not winning Afghanistan. No card check. No gays in the military. Trillions in debt. Giveaways to big banks. No Olympics. No shelter dog.

As long as the opt-out states don't have to subsidize the opt-in states (or run up the federal debt) it will be fun to watch this idea implode.

If the federal gov't charges each state the cost of administering a public option in that state it will last for 3 years tops.

Re: "No universal health care. No public insurance option. Not out of Iraq. Not winning Afghanistan. No card check. No gays in the military. Trillions in debt. Giveaways to big banks. No Olympics. No shelter dog."

Good list. I'd add:

More torture/rendition; more privatization of the military; more military spending and general militarism; more coverups; more kidnappings; more bailouts for the rich in general; more immunity of the powerful from prosecution; more "free" trade agreements; more corporatized education; more union dis-empowerment; more war crimes and crimes against humanity; more secret negotiations with corporate elites; more discrimination by faith-based grantees; and more support for energy, mining, logging, ranching and food-production norms.

But, except for that, Obama et al are a godsend.

<hr/>