• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Vermont attempting to set up a true single payer healthcare system

But a single payer means that you will need to wait to be seen by a doctor, unlike now where you can just drive in and demand any procedure be delivered immediately.
 
The Supreme Court ruling on the ACA opened the door to individual states either alone or in voluntary cooperation with other states to do this. They basically said that the federal government can't tell individual states how to set up their health delivery systems.
 
SimpleDon said:
The Supreme Court ruling on the ACA opened the door to individual states either alone or in voluntary cooperation with other states to do this. They basically said that the federal government can't tell individual states how to set up their health delivery systems.
Click to expand...

It is going to be interesting to see what Vermont does. Sometimes small can be beautiful. The very thing that gives Vermont the chance to strike out into new territory on the health care issue is denying adequate healthcare in Louisiana. That is perhaps not so interesting.
 
From reading threads at the old forum, I generally got the impression that having states able to make their own rules was considered a bad idea by most posters. When I suggested it would be a good idea for each state to choose its own healthcare system, as a sort of natural experiment to find out which one would work best in the US, that was roundly pooh-poohed.
 
ksen said:
http://www.vox.com/2014/4/9/5557696/forget-obamacare-vermont-wants-to-bring-single-payer-to-america

If they're successful this could finally be what brings a rational healthcare system to all of America.
Click to expand...

Oh, are you talking about this plan?

Vermont Democrats Labeling State's Single-Payer Health Plan a Failure

In 2011, Vermont passed the nation's first single-payer healthcare system, "Green Mountain Care." While the law was supposed to be fully enacted by 2017, it has become apparent that there's no solid plan in place to actually pay for the healthcare of all Vermont residents. Democratic lawmakers, citing missed deadlines and past failures, have begun to call for Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin to "shelve" the plan.


“The deadlines for proposing financing have been missed two years in a row now, so to me that’s very disappointing. It’s becoming clearer and clearer that there is no financing plan,” Condon told Vermont Watchdog.

The cost of one year of Green Mountain Care is estimated to be anywhere from 1.6 to 2.2 billion dollars. This is equal to the entire tax revenue of the state of Vermont.


Sen. Bobby Starr, another Democrat who voted against Act 48, told Vermont Watchdog in January there’s “no way” single-payer can work without new taxes. Indeed, no lawmaker has introduced any bill that would finance single-payer health care without also raising taxes.

It's foolish for Vermont to even entertain the thought of a single-payer system when its attempt at implementing an Obamacare exchange didn't go so well. Green Mountain Care is way too expensive for the state, and raising taxes is going to make an already business-unfriendly state even worse.
Click to expand...

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/christ...es-singlepayer-health-plan-a-failure-n1810856

Perhaps Vermont will discover a sea of oil, nationalize it to fund their health plan, and then claim that collectivism works for everybody?
 
"There's no way it can work without new taxes"

Umm ... Duh?

How did these people think it was going to work?
 
Well, if Townhall.com has doubts about it . . .
 
SimpleDon said:
The Supreme Court ruling on the ACA opened the door to individual states either alone or in voluntary cooperation with other states to do this. They basically said that the federal government can't tell individual states how to set up their health delivery systems.
Click to expand...

Um... The ACA included provisions for states to do exactly this sort of thing. Basically, a state could pretty much opt-out of the ACA if they implemented a system which was met the same goals or better... and the Obama admin was more than happy to approve Vermont's request to allow their single-payer system.
 
There seems to be some kind of special blind spot in the US that makes Americans think that provision of services is somehow completely unrelated to taxation. This bizarre and irrational belief seems to be the undercurrent in almost all US political discourse; and leads to the sort of 'gotcha' claims by political opponents that belong in mental hospitals.

If the citizens of Vermont no longer have to pay for healthcare to HMOs, who then pay for hospitals, doctors, nurses, etc., but instead the same total sum of money is to be paid by the State Government, from taxation revenue, to hospitals, doctors, nurses, etc., then there is no question that the people of Vermont can afford the new system. Of course, there will be some changes in the details of exactly who pays how much; but then, that is the whole point of the exercise.

If I currently pay Telstra $500 a month for my mobile phone, and decide to switch to Optus, it is insane to say "You can't switch to Optus, because you can't afford it - their service costs $400 a month, and your savings are only $10 a month after paying your existing bills". I am not going to keep paying for the service I no longer use, so i can pay for the new one using that money, without touching my savings.

It makes exactly the same sense to say 'Vermont can't afford single payer healthcare, because it would cost as much as their current total tax revenue'.

Raising new taxes to pay for new services does not seem to me to be unimaginable - indeed, it sounds completely sensible, to the point that is doesn't even need to be mentioned. Of course, if your government spends twice as much money next year as they do this year, they will need to raise twice as much revenue through taxes. How is this surprising, much less horrifying or unthinkable?

Why would a citizen be devastated by the idea of paying an extra $100 a month in taxes, if at the same time he is paying $100 a month less in health insurance premiums?

Taxes are not taken by the government and burned. They are spent on citizens. Sure, some of your taxes are wasted paying for bureaucrats, administrators and over-paid managers; but this is not a point of difference between taxes and health insurance premiums - so where is the beef?
 
bilby said:
There seems to be some kind of special blind spot in the US that makes Americans think that provision of services is somehow completely unrelated to taxation. This bizarre and irrational belief seems to be the undercurrent in almost all US political discourse; and leads to the sort of 'gotcha' claims by political opponents that belong in mental hospitals.

If the citizens of Vermont no longer have to pay for healthcare to HMOs, who then pay for hospitals, doctors, nurses, etc., but instead the same total sum of money is to be paid by the State Government, from taxation revenue, to hospitals, doctors, nurses, etc., then there is no question that the people of Vermont can afford the new system. Of course, there will be some changes in the details of exactly who pays how much; but then, that is the whole point of the exercise.

If I currently pay Telstra $500 a month for my mobile phone, and decide to switch to Optus, it is insane to say "You can't switch to Optus, because you can't afford it - their service costs $400 a month, and your savings are only $10 a month after paying your existing bills". I am not going to keep paying for the service I no longer use, so i can pay for the new one using that money, without touching my savings.

It makes exactly the same sense to say 'Vermont can't afford single payer healthcare, because it would cost as much as their current total tax revenue'.

Raising new taxes to pay for new services does not seem to me to be unimaginable - indeed, it sounds completely sensible, to the point that is doesn't even need to be mentioned. Of course, if your government spends twice as much money next year as they do this year, they will need to raise twice as much revenue through taxes. How is this surprising, much less horrifying or unthinkable?

Why would a citizen be devastated by the idea of paying an extra $100 a month in taxes, if at the same time he is paying $100 a month less in health insurance premiums?

Taxes are not taken by the government and burned. They are spent on citizens. Sure, some of your taxes are wasted paying for bureaucrats, administrators and over-paid managers; but this is not a point of difference between taxes and health insurance premiums - so where is the beef?
Click to expand...

Why do you hate America!!!!1!!1!!one

In my experience this is far too rational a thought process for the Fox/AM radio level of opposition to UCA in the states. Of course the private healthcare providers, insurance companies and sundry will make much less money under single payer. So it is perhaps understandable that the corporate cheer-leading squad is so dead set against a rational system - like that employed in pretty much every other developed country in the world.
 
OMG, VERMONT IS RULED BY A COMMONIST DICTATORSHIP!!!!!!!!!

Actually, I wonder how rightists will characterize this. They already claim that America is living under a communist dictatorship due to Obama, so how will they claim that Vermont has gone communist? I mean, this can't be presented as evidence that Vermont has become communist if all of America is already living under a communist dictatorship no different from the Soviet Union.

Addendum -- yes, liberal rhetoric is exactly as extreme because the lamestream media doesn't believe Obama has a secret weather machine. I apologize if I implied that conservolibertarians are in any way worse than anyone else. Please forgive me for being politically incorrect.
 
Underseer said:
Addendum -- yes, liberal rhetoric is exactly as extreme because the lamestream media doesn't believe Obama has a secret weather machine. I apologize if I implied that conservolibertarians are in any way worse than anyone else. Please forgive me for being politically incorrect.
Click to expand...

Very well.
 
bilby said:
Why would a citizen be devastated by the idea of paying an extra $100 a month in taxes, if at the same time he is paying $100 a month less in health insurance premiums?
Click to expand...

And don't forget the savings from having to meet ridiculous deductible and coninsurance expenses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom