Doesn't the Opt-Out Public Option Equal the Public Option?
Well the press is reporting that the opt-out public option compromise proposed by Senator Tom Carper (D) from Delaware is gaining steam. But practical speaking is there any difference between the two. Certainly, moderate Senators can make a claim of limiting government influence on their constituents medical lives by insisting on the Opt-out. But once this legislation passes, which states are going to opt out of the public option? With 65% of the public supporting the option which states governors and/or legislatures are going to reject for their constituents the benefit of lower medical costs and insurance rates? Is there a state that over time has more to gain by opting out?
Maybe our good old governor from Louisiana, Bobby Jindal will find some way to opt-out and opt-in at the same time, similar to what he did with stimulus money. How about our good old trail hiker governor from the South Carolina; he could publicly reject the plan, while his state legislature works to undermine his decision as they did with their stimulus package. Texas? Minnesota?
If in fact some states decide to opt-out how will the surrounding opt-in states deal with border crossers looking for medical care at opt-in rates?
Maybe our good old governor from Louisiana, Bobby Jindal will find some way to opt-out and opt-in at the same time, similar to what he did with stimulus money. How about our good old trail hiker governor from the South Carolina; he could publicly reject the plan, while his state legislature works to undermine his decision as they did with their stimulus package. Texas? Minnesota?
If in fact some states decide to opt-out how will the surrounding opt-in states deal with border crossers looking for medical care at opt-in rates?











