I'm thinking on the macro level. I know it happens a lot - everyone knows one family at the very least that has relocated for health reasons, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you'd see huge migrations.
But thanks for the information. I mean it's something that I'm really curious about.
I think the idea is that in practice it will be so popular that states without it won't be able to keep it out for long.
That may be naive, but don't talk about 'political cover' and 'betrayal' - as someone who wants the public option and is very afraid it won't be able to pass, when I first heard about opt-out I thought it was a smart idea, and I'm certain I'm not out to betray anyone.
I'm beginning to sour on it, but it should go without saying that this is a mechanism in case the national insurance plan can't pass the Senate. What if it can't? I'm not content to let the chips fall where they may so I can have the satisfaction of voting the bums out; I want something real.
"'And it would unravel because states that adopted the reform would become magnets for migration by the sick from states that opted out.'"
My first thought was that proof of residency would take care of that, but I do not want the public option run like Medicaid. Have you ever had to apply for Medicaid? I have, and I know that they deliberately make the triage so difficult that people just give up. And this was during the relatively solvent times of the early 'oughts.
But do you really think that would happen? How many families do you see having catastrophic, expensive injuries, and then relocating? I'm genuinely curious because I don't know if the pool of sick people is mobile in the sense that we usually think of the labor pool being mobile. And by I don't know I mean I do not know.
This is something that needs to be studied beyond the level of thought experiments and conjectures in essays, because "squeezing a few more votes out of the Senate" is the whole ballgame. This isn't like the trigger or co-ops - if it's opt-out or no plan, every last progressive in Congress will get behind opt-out.
I've been thinking about that a lot too, especially when I hear "this cheapens the award". The award has been dead to me since long before I was born. You cannot give Henry Kissinger an award with "peace" in the title unless you rewrite the dictionary.
So on with the realpolitik. Does this help things? Hurt things? Does this make my butt look flat?
And I promise I'll shut up about it eventually but it's such a nice distillation of what happens when the two primary elements of that personality type collide. Because here we see "We are the last few courageous people in a sick society" running headlong into "there's gonna be a reckoning. The people will rise up." Those things can't be true at the same time.
What else? Oh yeah, I also like the rambling overwrought style reads almost exactly like Miles Outlandish's old posts when he would pretend to be gay, and wounded by something Obama had said or done. The only thing missing is "I wish Leonard was here to hold me."
I find the argument that giving Obama the award now is a way of building momentum to be pretty persuasive. Both the Nobel committee and the Nobel recepient are putting it in these terms; nobody is confusing this for a lifetime achievement award, except for pockets here. And there.
Simply put, giving Barack Obama the award for the reasons they gave sends a stronger signal and will have a strongest impact than if the award were given to anyone else I can think of. It's a big impetus to increased diplomacy, mutual understanding and all the rest of it.
Which is what it should be about I thought? Treating this like it's the Oscars and how could you not give it to Goodfellas is just stupid.