Probably not in big numbers, argues Scott Fidel of UBS:
We are skeptical that a majority of the states would choose to “opt-out” of a public plan, given the firm position that Democrats currently hold at the state level. The Dems currently control the governorship in 28 out of 50 states and also control 27 state legislatures compared to only 14 that are in GOP control. The other 9 state legislatures are either split or officially nonpartisan.
The state “opt-out” approach would also serve to expand the battleground over health reform to the state level from the current war zone in D.C. Functionally, it would also further increase the relevance of upcoming state-level elections for the private health insurance industry. For example, the upcoming governors races in NJ and VA would both suddenly have much more important ramifications for the industry.
Subscribe in RSS Reader
In a practical sense how would a state explain to its citizens that it was opting out of a public option while they were paying taxes to subsidize those states who did not opt out?
The idea is not good, ERISA was enacted to help employers deal with variations in benefits and insurance rules among employees in different states, now we may take a giant step backwards.
http://quinnscommentary.com/category/healthcarehealthcare-reform/