Three Cheers for Rick Perry
Earlier this week, Governor Perry announced that Texas would not be setting up an ObamaCare exchange, and would not participate in ObamaCare's Medicaid expansion. In fact, Perry is the sixth governor to opt out of these two provisions. In yesterday's Washington Times, Perry argued that both the exchanges and the Medicaid expansion represent "brazen intrusions into the affairs of states." As I said recently, the states can defeat ObamaCare if enough of them refuse to implement its provisions.
The usual suspects, including the New Republic, are blasting Perry for the sin of turning down "free" money from Uncle Sam. After all, the federal government is picking up 100% of the costs of the Medicaid expansion, right?
Not exactly. Uncle Sam will pay none of the administrative costs associated with adding millions of people to the Medicaid rolls. Yes, the federal government will pay 100% of the additional Medicaid benefits for 3 years. And then 90% for the next 7 years. But after 10 years are up, there's no guarantee of any further federal funding. And you can bet that if Congress re-ups after 10 years, it will attach yet more strings to any further funding. That's the insidious nature of the federal grants: you get the states hooked on them, and then you layer on more and more conditions.
And there's the even more fundamental objection made by Perry: "this “federal money” is being printed out of thin air - racking up trillions of dollars of debt on the backs of our children and grandchildren."
As for the exchanges, as I said in my recent post, ObamaCare has no viable mechanism to force states to set up healthcare exchanges. The law seems to assume that the states would willingly play along. Oh well, 44 more states to go.
UPDATE: The lead editorial in today's (7/13) WSJ says that eight governors have refused to sign up for the Medicaid expansion.
- Comment (12)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments:
Mar '11
Re: Three Cheers for Rick Perry
Yes, but, can Mr Perry remember the third cheer?
Jan '11
Re: Three Cheers for Rick Perry
Which are the other states?
Feb '11
Re: Three Cheers for Rick Perry
By opting out, does this mean Texans cannot be taxed tobpay for the Medicaid expansion in the other states? If not, then I fear a majority of states will give in. It is just as coercive, if not more so, to tell states they can opt out of receiving funds but they can't opt out of paying for other states.
Jan '11
Re: Three Cheers for Rick Perry
But if ALL the states were to opt out there'd be no reason for the tax. (I can dream, can't I?)
Dec '10
Re: Three Cheers for Rick Perry
The increase in the tax is only for those making over $250K at this point.
Dec '10
Re: Three Cheers for Rick Perry
Adam,
Hey, I hear they're giving away FREE MONEY.
Regards,
Jim
Re: Three Cheers for Rick Perry
This is a very important point, and it's the biggest obstacle to getting more states to opt out. No, the states cannot opt out of paying, so those governors like Rick Perry who opt out have to withstand the charge that they are effectively subsidizing the other states. There are some conservatives in Congress who have developed legislation to give states a real choice to opt out of federal programs; that is, if they don't get the money, then their residents get a tax credit.
Re: Three Cheers for Rick Perry
Ouch!
Re: Three Cheers for Rick Perry
James Gawron: Adam,
Hey, I hear they're giving away FREE MONEY.
Regards,
Jim · 38 minutes ago
Is that Harry Reid in the video?
Apr '11
Re: Three Cheers for Rick Perry
Louisiana, Florida, South Carolina,Wisconsin. Don't know the other one.
Jul '11
Re: Three Cheers for Rick Perry
Hear here for three cheers! Ultimately, the last line of defense against government largesse will likely be individuals, cities, counties and states standing for principle and rejecting further federal monies and entitlements. Makes me proud to live in Texas.
-E
Nov '10
Re: Three Cheers for Rick Perry
Is there an explicit clause in the law allowing states to opt out? If not how is this any different from Obama refusing to enforce immigration laws? Lawlessness in support of policies we like is still lawlessness, after all.