But I'm not really sure yet - its complicated. The word is that his version of the obamacare bill is going to allow states to opt out. The little weasel is taking this approach to offset resistance in Nevada so he can get re-elected.
"We've spent countless hours over the last few days in consultation with senators who've shown a genuine desire to reform the health-care system," Reid said. "And I believe there's a strong consensus to move forward in this direction." The Senate provision would give states the right to opt out of a government plan, though Reid spokesman Jim Manley was unable to provide further details, describing the legislative language as a work in progress that has yet to be scrutinized by the Congressional Budget Office.
Even though the little weasel is doing it for all the wrong reasons, he is opening the door to a big Obama failure and putting this issue smack-dab in the laps of the states - where it belongs in the first place, if it belongs anywhere at all.
In a, surprisingly, clear view into the mind of a liberal writer, a Washing Post article by David Broder is titled "Damaging option for liberals - Harry Reid's self-serving bow to states' rights."
There is an air of desperate improvisation to Sen. Harry Reid's scheme to pass a "public option" as part of health-care reform but at the same time provide an easy exemption for any state that objects to it. The warning flags ought to be flying for anyone who can count to three -- let alone 60. The Democratic majority leader embraced this odd idea in hopes of satisfying two conflicting imperatives. On the one hand, he is under relentless pressure to satisfy the labor-left of his party in Washington, where a government-sponsored insurance plan has become the symbolic prize in the game, and back home in Nevada, where he needs union support to survive a scary election next year.
Now that is one fine example of speaking out of "both sides of ones mouth" isn't it? It really does smack of desperation.
Broder goes on to pose the questions "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."
Just imagine. States exercising their rights. What an outrageous concept!
The problem, of course, is that even if states opted out, the coverage for the ones that didn't opt out would be paid for, in part, by the the residents of the states that did opt out.
On the other hand, imagine all the moochers and illegaliens who would move out of the opted out states to the states which didn't opt out. There's a benefit to consider. It might even be a big enough benefit to offset the disproportionate taxation. If the moochers and illegaliens moved out, they would take their welfare, healthcare, free housing, etc with them. Those of us left would no longer be burdened with meeting all of their needs. That cost saving might offset the lost taxes. And, without the free healthcare given to the moochers and illegaliens healthcare costs would drop dramatically in the opt-out states making healthcare in those states more affordable. Hmmmm. That sounds like a plan to me.
Read more from Chuck Thompson