Posts Tagged ‘opt-out’
Health Care News
Yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced that the health care legislation he is drafting will include a government-run health insurance plan, or as many on the left like to call it “the public option.” The new wrinkle that Reid has thrown into the proposal is an “opt out” clause which would require states to pass legislation by 2014 rejecting participation in the federal government run plan. None of the committees in the House or Senate ever even voted on this new opt out scheme. But that does not really matter. Whether it is first implemented through a co-op, or a trigger, or an opt out, the end goal is the same: government-run health care for all Americans.
Hotel Harry Reid: Reid provided very few details for his “opt out” proposal, but here is what we do know: the government run plan would be available on the first day that major provisions of Obamacare would take effect in 2013, and states would have until 2014 to pass legislation declining participation in the program. This means that a one-vote majority of obstructionists in one chamber of a state legislature, by refusing to act, can consign a state’s residents to an eternity of government-run health care. In 17 states Democrats control both houses of the legislature and the state house. In another 24, Democrats control at least one legislative chamber or the governor’s mansion. That leaves a total of only 9 states where Republicans run the entire show — Texas, Utah, South Carolina, South Dakota, North Dakota, Missouri, Idaho, Florida, and Georgia. That means Americans in 41 states are all but guaranteed to have no choice but to endure the government run health plan. What opt out really means is: You’re already checked in, and if you don’t do so by 2014, you can never leave. (more…)
Tags: Co-Op, government-run health care, Obama Health Care Plan, opt-out, public option, Trigger
Health Care News
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced that he would bring to the Senate floor a bill that includes a new “public plan,” but with a provision allowing states to “opt-out.” In response to a reporter’s question, Reid said that states would have until 2014 to opt-out.
Setting aside the debate over the merits of a “public option”,- a new government-run health plan to compete against private health plans- there are a number of additional questions about how such a state opt-out would work. Specifically:
- 1. What process will a state have to follow if it wants to opt-out of the public plan?
- 2. Will opting-out require an affirmative vote of the state’s legislature?
- 3. Will an opt-out resolution approved by a state’s legislature need to also be approved by the state’s governor?
- 4. In some states the legislature meets in a full-session only every other year. In keeping with the allowances given such states by Congress when it has enacted federal laws that required state action, will those states be given additional time beyond 2014 to decide if they want to opt-out?
- 5. Can a state decision to opt-out be made through a ballot initiative or referendum? (more…)
Tags: government-run health care, Obama Health Care Plan, opt-out, public option
Heritage Research
In the Senate, there is growing interest in the idea of a state “opt-out” of the federal public plan, a government –run health plan that would “compete” against private health plans. This latest Senate ploy creates the illusion of an “option” rather than making any fundamental changes to the controversial proposal. While it is difficult to understand its true impact until legislative language is available, taxpayers who will bear the cost burdens of a new government health care entitlement should keep a few points in mind:
1. States could only op-out of the public plan, not of the entire bill.
This is only an “opt-out” of one section of the massive health care proposal. There are literally hundreds of provisions that the states may find unacceptable, like the costly Medicaid expansion. That, for example, would add millions of new people onto the Medicaid rolls, and aggravate the “crowd out” of private health coverage and guarantee higher taxpayer burdens for one of the nation’s most poorly performing welfare programs.
2. A state opt-out does not eliminate the public plan.
The federal government would likely require the any state wishing to opt-out to still meet federal conditions. It could come, for example, as an explicit requirement that a state set up a public plan “option” that mirrors the federal public plan or as a public plan masquerading as a “co-op” that is in effect controlled, funded and accountable to the government. For those who wish to see a genuinely competitive insurance market, with all plans competing on a truly level playing field, a public plan requirement is a dangerous proposition whether administered at the federal level or the state level.
3. Experience shows that a federal public plan would likely be the easiest option for state officials.
With the typical bureaucratic red tape and administrative complexity accompanying a state opt-out, states would likely discourage states from opting-out. Moreover, the federal strings that follow would likely strangle states ability to administer an option that does not closely follow the federal public plan model.
Crushing State Innovation.
The massive bills in the House and Senate- with individual and employer mandates, federal control over health insurance benefits, new boards and commissions micromanaging what taxpayers get or don’t get, new fees, taxes and insurance costs- is a challenge to the citizens of the states. Bright and innovative state officials would prefer to embark on their own reforms, but these bills would crush creativity, innovation and experimentation under the weight of federal control and conformity.
A true state “opt out” would allow states to opt-out of the entire health care proposal in exchange for making measurable progress in improving cost, quality and access to care for its citizens. Any other opt-out is just another shell game that is intended to appear as a concession but in reality provides a pretext for greater federal control and blocks much needed structural changes.
Tags: Medicaid Expansion, opt-out, pubilc option, state innovation
Health Care News
“Whether you call it a public option, a trigger, or a co-op, the fact is all of these proposals put us on the path to government-run health care.” — (October 26, 2009, FoxNews.com)
Tags: Co-Op, opt-out, public plan, Trigger
-
Sidebar Ads
Featured Videos
Archives
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
