Opt-Out Proposal Undermines a Strong Public Option

Debate started Monday in the Senate over the different proposed Health Care Reform bills and already there is much debate between the bill passed in House and what the Senate is proposing. The New York Times helped simplify this by providing readers an interactive plan comparison. In my opinion, the Senate plan is the better of the two in how it addresses paying for such a plan and the excise tax on so called Cadillac plans which are deemed premium plans that really add little additional value. However, the Senate plan does propose an 'opt-out' option for states that does concern me given this seems to me to be more of a political move in reducing political opposition that eventually could lead to quicker resolution and passing of bill. However, as I think more about such a proposal, doesn't it undermine a need for a strong public option?
These are essentially equivalent, but requiring legislative action to opt-in would probably
decrease the likelihood of state participation relative to the opting-out. My concern with such a proposal is that if a state legislation did move forward with opting out, depending on the state, those with larger poor population and sick could overall have a negative affect. Living in what is clearly a Replublican lead state and having a sizeable portion of the population along with number of low income residents, really concerns me. Even if neighboring states would create a regional co-op to negotiate lower rates, it would be safe to say that in the South and West, there is the make up of a majority of low income families and could be at a disadvantage when negotiating with providers. I vote against such an 'opt-out' proposal and that every individual has a right to a national public plan and not to provide states legislation's such an option.