Will Red States Opt Out of Blue State Generosity?

[kpete]

Will Red States Opt Out of Blue State Generosity?

Just in time for the debate over the merits of a state-by-state "opt out" of a national public health insurance option, the Commonwealth Fund has released its 2009 state health care scorecard. As in 2007, the data reveals the critical condition of red state health care. All of which could present Republican governors and legislatures with a dilemma: will they refuse to offer lower cost insurance coverage for their residents by rejecting a system funded in part by blue state taxpayers?



Given the contentious ongoing debate in the Senate, crystal ball-gazing for any public option, whether national, opt-in or opt-out is premature. But the Commonwealth Fund's analysis of health care indicators shows the stakes for its red state opponents. While nine of the top 10 performing states voted for Barack Obama in 2008, four of the bottom five (including Arkansas, Mississippi, Oklahoma and Louisiana) and 14 of the last 20 backed John McCain. (That at least is an improvement from the 2007 data, in which all 10 cellar dwellers had voted for George W. Bush three years earlier.)



(Here is the Commonwealth Fund's 2009 state-by-state health care scorecard. Here are links to the executive summary, the full report and PDF and Powerpoint chart packs.)

...................

..........a double quandary for the Republican leadership in Congress and in the states. After all, their residents not only need health care reform most. As it turns out, the funding in part would come from blue state taxpayers.

As the Washington Post noted in May ("A Red State Booster Shot"):

Health-care reform may be overdue in a country with 45 million uninsured and soaring medical costs, but it will also represent a substantial wealth transfer from the North and the East to the South and the West. The Northeast and the Midwest have much higher rates of coverage than the rest of the country, led by Massachusetts, where all but 3 percent of residents are insured. The disproportionate share of uninsured is in the South and the West, the result of employment patterns, weak unions and stingy state governments. Texas leads the way, with a quarter of its population uninsured; it would be at the top even without its many illegal immigrants.

more:
http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/001640.htm

[BlooInBloo]

1. I don't think any will...

But I have underestimated the stupidity of Americans in the past.

[saracat]

2. Arizona will opt out. Our Democratic Legislators agree that they will.

And while we are a "red " state , our money goes to support the blue states .We are a "donor" state.

[BlooInBloo]

4. Congrats on being in one of the few red states that isn't a welfare state.

[saracat]

6. Yeah and on potentially being told to drop dead if they pass the

state by state.But then all the hard working liberals who have tried to elect others should just "suffer" and take one for the team.our state party, which was one of the wealthiest in the Nation poured all their resources into trying to beat Mccain in Arizona to send a message. In doing so, not only did Obama NOT carry Arizona, but we lost almost every local race including "safe races." But hey, Obama didn't lose by as much as he might have so the fact we can now carry guns in bars, abortion has been made ridiculously difficult to acquire( thought that is a temporary hold awaiting a local judicial ruling)our social services are gone, and we are 49/50 in the nation in education) is no big deal. And now, with the possibility of the opt out, our only victories, some Congressional pickups are in jeopardy.but hey, all this is the fault of the Arizona liberals. They "deserve" to be punished, lose their houses and not be eligible for any kind of insurance.After all, they live in a "red" state. And please don't spout the canard about business will pressure them into opting in.We no longer have any business in AZ and haven't for some time.Tourism is our only business and they don't care if we save health care.



"They don't Care About Us".

[BlooInBloo]

7. That's something you may wish to take up with the people in your state....

EDIT: Of course, those people who are absolutely convinced that it's going to be a "just sign anything, no matter how shitty" bill are probably better off with opt-op ability, right? After all, I keep hearing "it's worse than nothing" from those people.

So "states' rights" people may yet have the last laugh. Don't give up hope. :)

[saracat]

9. Yeah too bad for us, while the blue states take our money. This is something the Admin in DC needs

to take up.We have done all we can.

[BlooInBloo]

11. I'm very sorry your state has such a shitacular electorate...

and that it is impossible to change it.

[saracat]

15. It isn't impossible but DC continues to make it so .We did have a great Dem

governor and her veto often saved us but The president felt he needed her more at Homeland Sec and our GOP Sec. of state succeeded her.All the DNC knew this would happen. but it is all politics and "NO one Cares About Us". The people.

[BlooInBloo]

18. I'm sorry Obama made your electorate so shitacular.

[saracat]

21. I don't blame Obama. I blame the organization that made these decisions.

In another incident of AZ being a "donor" state is was decided since we raised so much money that a lot of it should be sent to states that might support Obama so additional money that could have been used for local candidates was sent out of state to help their local candidates.

[Zoeisright]

8. Arizona is not a donor state according to this:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr139.pdf

[saracat]

10. All I know is our Democratic Congresspersons say we are.

I also know until we elected Harry Mitchell in D5 no congressperson ever brought back any benefits for Az. In CD 3 Shadegg has brought back nothing. Even in this current crisis the state tried to reject the stimulus! We still haven't received it all and they waited until it was too late to save many programs.

[BlooInBloo]

12. Aw crap. So it's not even *true*?

[saracat]

16. This is a quote from Harry Mitchell, our Democratic Congressman D5 AZ

This is from his poject vote smart page

"Mitchell is also working to makes sure Arizona's tax dollars benefit Arizona. Mitchell has been working to change antiquated funding formulas that have left Arizona short-changed. When it comes to highway funding, Arizona has historically been a "donor state," which means we pay more in taxes than we get back from the federal treasury. Mitchell changed federal highway law to enable Arizona to receive a higher federal funding share for key highway projects."

And the actual quote is here

http://www.harrymitchellforcongress.com/release_details.asp?id=28


"For too long, Arizona has been what is called a "donor state," which means that not all of the money we pay in federal highway taxes come back to our state. I'm working to fix that and do what I can to make sure we have the infrastructure we need as our population continues to grow through securing funding for the Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport and light rail."


Harry is known for honesty.

[BlooInBloo]

20. Thanks for showing me what he said.

[TxRider]

17. Texas is a donor state as well, knowing our governor we will opt out too

But we could easily go blue next election.

[BlooInBloo]

19. That one I knew about.

[get the red out]

3. Sad, but the areas that need it most will not want it

Brain washing has done a wonderful job on a lot of people, I think some people in my own state wouldn't want it if it meant harm to their own. But we have a Democratic Governor, so who knows? I know that parts of this state would rather die than not do what Rush Limpdick and Sean Hannity tell them.

[thunder rising]

5. States would have to set up reciprocity agreements. Drivers license subs for Health insurance card?

Do you deport a sick person that hops a state line?

These would be a couple of issues that would come to mind.

[gkhouston]

13. If the "generosity" is coming out of state budgets, you bet your ass they will. nt

[blueworld]

14. Excellent points & sharing is anathema is this pathetic debate

God forbid we give to one another. The South traditionally provided textiles, furniture (now in China) & tobacco (a horrible health effect). The North considers themselves self-sufficient (complete with drugs & crime & corruption).

So rather than reach out & share (God forbid because we each should roast in the hell of our own sins), we have to hoard whatever we have & hope to outlive the godless masses to prove we're right even if we starve to death with a smile on our superior faces.

I would simply like to add that the generosity isn't primarily or only from the blue states. The red states have & continue to provide circumstances that allow the Yankee smugness & illusion of wealth.

And as long as each of us can pretend we're separate from the other, we're doomed to frankly suffer & die.

Can NY live on data processing & greedy banks? Where's the farmland? Primarily in starving red states? Can the South live on crazy preachers & guns? Where's the education? Up north?

God help us if we can't embrace.

[clear eye]

22. Republicans and Blue Dogs have no trouble

painting any social safety net program as a ruinous tax-increasing measure. It has never mattered what the reality of cost/benefits are. Why do you think they would hesitate for a second this time? Especially when there are such huge campaign contributions at stake with which to sell it and themselves come the next election.

So I say to DUers who are betting the red states wouldn't dare opt out, "DON'T COUNT ON IT."

Anyway, the "public" option debate is not as much of a mystery as you make out. There are enough votes, 54 or 56 depending on whom you talk to, to pass the type of weak privatized "public" option that is in the House and Senate HELP Committee bills. A "robust" public option, gov't-run and allowed to bargain for rates w/ providers is nowhere to be seen. As long as the bill that comes up for a vote doesn't include any poison pills like a prohibition against states creating their own single-payer, it's probably better than no change. Maybe. If the companies don't lobby to be allowed to charge our gov't so much for minimal coverage that we can only find the money to subsidize a relative handful of folks. And if it won't turn people off to the idea of publicly funded health care altogether.

I'm still hoping that the famous Churchill quote is right in this case. That America will do the right thing after it has tried everything else.


edited for clarity