Won't Health Care Reform cost LESS than advertised due to opt-out /opt-in/trigger/etc.???

Am I mistaken or are not all the numbers being discussed based on participation in the public option by all states?

If, say... 1/3 of the population of the United States live in states that opt-out (or never opt-in) then the cost estimates are high by 33.3%.


Yes, this is a grotesque oversimplification. The true cost adjustment should be made based on the percentage of the population that might have participated in th e public option. This actually increases the cost benefit since most red states have the greatest need for lower cost health care and they are also the ones most likely to not participate.


Shouldn't this be a talking point to help negate the attacks on the cost of the public option?




F.Y.I. .... I am pro single payer, I think health care should be a basic right to all citizens and hate all this opt out crap. I do however want something to get passed beyond the 60 vote barrier so that further reform can be made through budget reconciliation.

unless there's some as yet unpublicized clause which stipulates that money budgeted to fatten insurance corps gets awarded whether it's used for health or not.

Non-existent health care should cost less. Yes, that would seem logical, but it hardly seems like a strong selling point.

If a state opts-out, then people will just choose a private exchange plan instead anyway. All exchange plans will be subsidized based on income, and thats where the costs are.