David Broder takes concern trolling to new heights today. He is bashing Harry Reid for including a public option in the Senate’s base health care reform bill instead of using Olympia Snowe’s trigger idea. But his argument is based on the opt-out provision, which is a compromise that can hopefully bridge the divide between liberals and conservadems in the caucus. Broder doesn’t like the opt-out provision because it violates the liberals’ commitment to health care as an individual right. Some people might lose access to health care simply because they have the misfortune to live in a conservative state. It’s a familiar criticism, often voiced sincerely by people on the left. Coming from Broder, however, in defense of the trigger policy, it’s too clever by half.
Consider the precedent that would be set if a major piece of social legislation were to be passed with a states’ rights provision. Imagine, for example, if Franklin Roosevelt had signed the first Social Security law with the proviso that any states with Republican governors and legislatures could exempt themselves from its coverage.
My response is that Broder should consider a major piece of social legislation called Medicaid:
Medicaid was created on July 30, 1965, through Title XIX of the Social Security Act. Each state administers its own Medicaid program while the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) monitors the state-run programs and establishes requirements for service delivery, quality, funding, and eligibility standards…
…State participation in Medicaid is voluntary; however, all states have participated since 1982 when Arizona formed its Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS) program.
Gee. Imagine that. FDR’s Social Security Act was amended in 1965 to pass a health care bill with a ‘states-rights’ opt-out provision. Wank on, Broder. Wank on.
