Many health reform advocates have objected to Federalist Public Option. From single payer advocates, nationwide robust public option advocates, even level playing field public option advocates, I see the logic of their arguments. But d-day offers (btw congrats d-day for the FDL gig) an objection to the Federalist Public Option that makes no sense to me - one that argues that a trigger is superior:

Nelson, a former state Insurance Commissioner in a state with a Republican legislature and Governor, probably understands that an opt out would mean that Florida gets bubkus. Obviously, his positive comments on the trigger mean he’s itching to sell out, but not in a way that would deny his constituents at least a fig leaf of a benefit. The politics of the opt-out haven’t been thought out entirely by supporters; in states like Florida it probably loses Democratic votes. [. . .] If the opt out doesn’t bring in additional votes and in fact loses some, I’m not sure why it’s being discussed as an option.

The idea that it loses votes is surmise. But certainly it makes no sense for health reform advocates to disfavor the Federalist Public Option in favor of toothless and empty triggers. Do not let triggers be a viable political alternative and Dems will get in line is my theory. But allow them to consider triggers as acceptable, and many will run to it. D-Day's thinking makes no sense to me.

Speaking for me only