The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

While we don't yet know the details, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid unvieled a plan today to create a national government health care plan, but allow states to opt-out of it if they choose. While supporters of the measure have touted it as simply federalism, the reality is far different.

The problem is that even if legislation allows individual states to opt out of a government plan, any national plan will incur costs that would likely be borne by all taxpayers, regardless of whether or not their state carries the plan. For instance, any government plan would have to have initial start up costs -- in the House Democrats' bill these amount to $2 billion, which would be given to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. And if the government plan begins losing money and needs to be bailed out by the federal government, taxpayers in all states would bear the burden.

While the House bill includes a provision that would prevent a federal bailout, nobody seriously believes -- especially after the events of the past year -- that future lawmakers would allow a government plan with millions of beneficiaries to fail rather then pump federal money into it.

View all comments (4) | Leave a comment

Ken (Old Texican)| 10.26.09 @ 5:00PM

I wouldn't trust present day Democrats with a dog-catcher bill!

Every communque to congress should begin with the words in 16 point Type... YOU ARE FIRED! Clean out your desk!

PKane| 10.26.09 @ 5:21PM

Federalism my *Democratic party symbol*!

It'll be just like the "federalism" of everything from stimulus to speed limits tied to highway funds. Sure, you don't *have to* participate, but you still have to pay for it.

BD57| 10.26.09 @ 5:30PM

The "no bailout provision" is worse than "probably ineffective" - - - it's flatly unenforceable.

No Congress can bind a future Congress. Our elected officials know this. Including that provision in the law is a bald-faced attempt to deceive voters.

Liberal Reader| 10.26.09 @ 10:12PM

Yes.

Leave a Comment

N.B. We encourage readers to share and discuss their thoughtful and relevant comments about this Spectator article. Comments are routinely monitored and will be deleted if profane, bigoted, or grossly impolite. Please be respectful. (And don't feed the trolls!) Thank you.

More Blog Posts by Philip Klein

http://spectator.org/blog/2009/10/26/will-an-opt-out-approach-reall

ADVERTISEMENT

The Spectacle Blog

Meghan McCain Doesn't Get It

Jeffrey Lord | 1:36PM

The Paul Factor

W. James Antle, III | 1:29PM

Bain v. Solyndra

W. James Antle, III | 12:11PM

Illusionist

Yogi Love | 10:06AM

At Least He Apologized

Ross Kaminsky | 8:34AM

Gallup: Veterans Prefer Romney

W. James Antle, III | 5.28.12

SPONSORED LINKS

Special Feature

Better that we become a nation of choosers rather than beggars. Our symposium on choice from the May, 2012 issue:

A Time for Choosing

James Piereson

The Road from Serfdom

Stephen Moore and Peter Ferrara

FLASHBACK TO: 1984

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

Meet the Flukes!

F. H. Buckley | 5.25.12

Terror by Any Other Name

Robert Stacy McCain | 5.29.12

The Wisconsin Turning Point

Peter Ferrara | 5.23.12

In Search of Muhammad

Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi | 5.25.12

The White House Sieve

Jed Babbin | 5.29.12

Age and Kyl

Quin Hillyer | 5.25.12

Osceola Who?

Reid Collins | 5.29.12

ADVERTISEMENT