<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><oembed><version><![CDATA[1.0]]></version><provider_name><![CDATA[The Dish]]></provider_name><provider_url><![CDATA[http://dish.andrewsullivan.com]]></provider_url><author_name><![CDATA[Andrew Sullivan]]></author_name><author_url><![CDATA[https://dish.andrewsullivan.com/author/sullydish/]]></author_url><title><![CDATA[The Lethal Politics Of The Opt-Out Public Option,&nbsp;Ctd]]></title><type><![CDATA[link]]></type><html><![CDATA[<p>Megan <a href="http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/10/the_parlous_public_option.php">demurs</a>:</p><blockquote><p>A bill with a strong public option looks to me like a bill that can&#39;t pass. What am I missing?</p></blockquote><p>That the Reid proposal is a weak public option with state opt-outs? Here&#39;s the beauty of it. No one really knows what a public option would ultimately mean. No one really knows what will become of much of these ideas in practice. And that is a real problem for reformers: the unintended consequences could be profound and yet they are also unknowable. </p><p>A conservative can say: therefore <em>do nothing</em>. The problem with that is that the status quo is extremely uncomfortable - fiscally and in terms of actual, you know, healthcare. In an insecure economy, it&#39;s more than uncomfortable, it&#39;s nerve-wracking.</p><p>So a conservative can also say: well, let&#39;s try it out in a few states and see what happens. ]]></html></oembed>