Alex is almost proposing a confederal arrangement which also oversimplifies the blue/red dichotomy.

I'm assuming that those of you who support this type of federalization would also support the reallocation of federal tax dollars that would be necessary to support it.

Sure, although it would be a more general system. Basically, the federal government would offer funding (whether in the form of a percentage of costs or a lump sum payment, or even in the form of delegating a certain amount of federal tax revenue) to the states (earmarked for health care), provided that they created a system that met certain standards in providing universal coverage and care, and agreed to allow the federal government to investigate potential abuses and conduct studies.

That would allow the states to experiment with a variety of universal health care models, while adapting to the variation in costs on a state-by-state basis.

Since most red states are net recipients of federal money, I somehow think that the residents of the red states would not be as welcoming of this proposal as Alex and James may think.

States are almost always open to more money as long as the money stays there (and they don't get slammed with an unfunded obligation later when it runs out), and that usually applies even when the program is controversial. A major part of the integration of the school system in the 1960s, for example, was due to a massive expansion in federal school funding to schools who met the requirements.

I do agree that it is the right way to go (and is actually the way the constitution envisioned the country working). Then we could let the blue states create their utopias and study the results. Again, see Mass.

But also wasn't their evidence or at least concern that the Massachusetts program was drawing less healthy people into their state?

Like Sam I think it may be too early to make a call on health care but we can hope it fails. Why not let the states test new policies before the nation takes them on?

It seems to me that I took some crap in this space a month or so ago for noting that federalism was meant to allow a lot of little experiments in democracy where the better ideas would win out over time. Sadly, some folks seem to think they already have all the answers and their hubris blinds them to the deficiencies and unintended consequences of their hasty, ill-considered actions, e.g., rushing through forklift legislation for a massive change in health care for everyone that few have read and even fewer understand rather than implementing an incremental approach that gives the affected cultures and organizations time to adapt to what must be very significant changes, no matter what shape reform ultimately takes. The ludicrousness of the assertion that something, anything, must be done right now is exceeded only by the insane presumption that the sausage being produced will be the perfect sausage, delivering miraculous levels of service to more people at a lower cost with minimal effort and no sacrifice! Why, who could possibly be against that?

Alex Massie argues that the current inability of the Democrats to pass meaningful health care reform

Alex is engaging a little gun jumping, doncha think?