Comments on: Time bomb? http://www.samefacts.com/2009/10/health-care/time-bomb/ Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. Fri, 10 Feb 2012 02:27:45 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: priscianus jr http://www.samefacts.com/2009/10/health-care/time-bomb/comment-page-1/#comment-34359 priscianus jr Thu, 29 Oct 2009 09:46:00 +0000 http://www.samefacts.com/?p=9180#comment-34359 As I understand it -- the Republicans are not going to vote for it anyway, but it gives cover to the Yellow Dogs to support it, because it transfers the decision to the governors and legislatures of their respective states. So the rest of the Dems in Congress are happy, and nobody back home can blame the senators and congressmen who voted for it: "Look, you're free to opt out if that's what you want." As I understand it — the Republicans are not going to vote for it anyway, but it gives cover to the Yellow Dogs to support it, because it transfers the decision to the governors and legislatures of their respective states. So the rest of the Dems in Congress are happy, and nobody back home can blame the senators and congressmen who voted for it: “Look, you’re free to opt out if that’s what you want.”

]]> By: piminnowcheez http://www.samefacts.com/2009/10/health-care/time-bomb/comment-page-1/#comment-34340 piminnowcheez Wed, 28 Oct 2009 16:43:32 +0000 http://www.samefacts.com/?p=9180#comment-34340 This is the second expression of surprise about Sullivan's comment I've read today. I gotta say - I'm surprised at the surprise; this is the first thing I thought of when I read about the opt-out idea, and I thought this is why it was generally well-received by the left. It didn't occur to me that anyone considered it a good idea on its own merits (not that it isn't, I have no idea), and what I really expected was that Democrats meant to use it as a scare tactic to push back at uncooperative moderate Republicans. I can't imagine the kind of political pressure a Republican statehouse would come under if they opted out while State-next-door opted in, and with every effort to do so they would inflict more damage to themselves and the whole idiotic narrative they rely on to argue against health reform. I'm honestly astonished that we might actually end up with this really in the final bill. That's how it looks to my eye, anyway, but I can't claim to have any special strategic sense. This is the second expression of surprise about Sullivan’s comment I’ve read today. I gotta say – I’m surprised at the surprise; this is the first thing I thought of when I read about the opt-out idea, and I thought this is why it was generally well-received by the left. It didn’t occur to me that anyone considered it a good idea on its own merits (not that it isn’t, I have no idea), and what I really expected was that Democrats meant to use it as a scare tactic to push back at uncooperative moderate Republicans. I can’t imagine the kind of political pressure a Republican statehouse would come under if they opted out while State-next-door opted in, and with every effort to do so they would inflict more damage to themselves and the whole idiotic narrative they rely on to argue against health reform. I’m honestly astonished that we might actually end up with this really in the final bill. That’s how it looks to my eye, anyway, but I can’t claim to have any special strategic sense.

]]> By: Thomas http://www.samefacts.com/2009/10/health-care/time-bomb/comment-page-1/#comment-34301 Thomas Tue, 27 Oct 2009 20:47:37 +0000 http://www.samefacts.com/?p=9180#comment-34301 Uh, no. I'm not familiar with any Republican governor being chastised for taking free money from Washington. What does Andrew mean by "if it works as it should"? Does he mean if it becomes a de facto single payer? Uh, no. I’m not familiar with any Republican governor being chastised for taking free money from Washington.

What does Andrew mean by “if it works as it should”? Does he mean if it becomes a de facto single payer?

]]> By: Robert Waldmann http://www.samefacts.com/2009/10/health-care/time-bomb/comment-page-1/#comment-34296 Robert Waldmann Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:41:45 +0000 http://www.samefacts.com/?p=9180#comment-34296 Andrew Sullivan has a good point. I made the same point on September 4 2009 http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2009/09/public-option-harder-ball.html OK my version was unconstitutional, but the time bomb argument was there. Andrew Sullivan has a good point. I made the same point on September 4 2009

http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2009/09/public-option-harder-ball.html

OK my version was unconstitutional, but the time bomb argument was there.

]]> By: Posts about Andrew Sullivan as of October 27, 2009 » The Daily Parr http://www.samefacts.com/2009/10/health-care/time-bomb/comment-page-1/#comment-34294 Posts about Andrew Sullivan as of October 27, 2009 » The Daily Parr Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:47:46 +0000 http://www.samefacts.com/?p=9180#comment-34294 [...] about Andrew Sullivan as of October 27, 2009 Time bomb? – samefacts.com 10/27/2009 Andrew Sullivan thinks that the public option with an opt-out will [...] [...] about Andrew Sullivan as of October 27, 2009 Time bomb? – samefacts.com 10/27/2009 Andrew Sullivan thinks that the public option with an opt-out will [...]

]]>