Gov. Schwarzenegger's health-care plan collapsed for the same reason similar plans have failed in other states:
An independent analysis confirmed the plan would be far more expensive than proponents admitted. Even under the most favorable assumptions, spending would outpace revenue by $354 million after two years, and likely $3.9 billion or more. "A situation that I thought was bad," Mr. Perata noted, "in fact was worse."
This reveals that liberal health-care politics is increasingly the art of the impossible: You can't make coverage "universal" while at the same time keeping costs in check -- at least without prohibitive tax increases. Lowering cost and increasing access, in other words, are separate and irreconcilable issues.
Of course Washington might be able to disregard these practicalities, because the states are prohibited from running deficits while the feds aren't. But the California experience also reveals some of the ideological differences among Democrats, which would also divide in the Beltway.
Universal coverage and costs held in check are mutually exclusive. Well, duh. The good thing about all these state failures is that it might help some in the national debate we're going to have. And we are going to have it. Clinton and Obama have promised national health care, and Romney pushed through a similar plan in Massachusetts. That's actually one good thing about McCain -- his health-care proposals are the most private-sector, market driven ones.
