Was anyone else aware Vermont had single payer health care?

[Laize]

The article is like a year old but I was legitimately unaware this had taken place.

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2011/may/ve...yer-healthcare

Maybe I need to actually concern myself with what happens at the state level in some states...

[Willeonge]

The article is like a year old but I was legitimately unaware this had taken place.

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2011/may/ve...yer-healthcare

Maybe I need to actually concern myself with what happens at the state level in some states...

I remember reading somewhere it will take some time to implement and rewrite all the laws needed for this to take place though.

[Laize]

I remember reading somewhere it will take some time to implement and rewrite all the laws needed for this to take place though.

Yeah they estimate 2017 at the latest but they're pushing for 2014.

While I don't agree with the single payer model, I'm glad states are actually using their legislatures to try and do something besides sit around and wait for the US congress to pull their heads out of their asses. Besides, I don't live in Vermont.

I'd be very pleased if decisions like this stayed at the state level. Then everyone in the country could be happy.

[Gulvar]

States really need to make more choices on their own. That way they can either reap the benefits or face the consequences of their choices.

[Laize]

States really need to make more choices on their own. That way they can either reap the benefits or face the consequences of their choices.

Agreed 100,000x over. Why everyone thinks that things like universal health care have to be nationwide is beyond me. You have a state. You have a legislature. Get cracking. Don't try to determine what's best for everyone else.

[Wells]

We think they should be nationwide because we think they're the best solutions and we have a national government?

Plus the federal government has resources states don't.

---------- Post added 2012-05-29 at 04:46 AM ----------

I mean the whole "don't try to determine what's best for everyone else" thing is stupid unless you think everyone in Vermont is in favor of this.

[Laize]

We think they should be nationwide because we think they're the best solutions and we have a national government?

Plus the federal government has resources states don't.

---------- Post added 2012-05-29 at 04:46 AM ----------

I mean the whole "don't try to determine what's best for everyone else" thing is stupid unless you think everyone in Vermont is in favor of this.

Well the bill in Vermont had bipartisan support so clearly a huge majority of them were in favor of it.

Not every problem needs a nationwide solution. Just like how states approve right-to-work laws, states should be allowed to determine whether or not they want universal health care.

Let's be clear here. I don't approve of universal health care. I DO approve of states' rights to choose it if that's what they want.

[Wells]

Well health care more or less sucks in every state in the country, so a nationwide solution is needed. Employment laws and health care access are apples and oranges.

And I'm sure you approve of everyone having health care access, even you aren't that much of a social darwinist, what you disapprove of is single payer.

[Laize]

Well health care more or less sucks in every state in the country, so a nationwide solution is needed. Employment laws and health care access are apples and oranges.

And I'm sure you approve of everyone having health care access, even you aren't that much of a social darwinist, what you disapprove of is single payer.

I disapprove of all public health care. It makes no sense to me that companies that provide health insurance plans are required to pay into medicare. In that same vein, people who have health plans shouldn't have to pay into medicare either. They take nothing out, they should have to put nothing in.

I see no reason everyone can't have health coverage if it weren't a dual public/private system like we have and were all private.

If Vermont wants single payer, more power to them. I applaud them finding a solution for themselves independently of what Congress dictates.

I, however, do not want socialized health care for my state.

[Wells]

Universal health care is simply a state where everyone has access to workable health care. UHC is as theoretically doable under your Randian markets as it is under Single Payer.

And we've tried the all private thing and not only did many not have it, but many couldn't get it. There are always going to be people who are not sufficiently profitable to insure that they will be able to get insurance at a feasible rate.

In the end a single payer system would be economically good for us. Its cheaper than we have, freeing money to be spent on growth, it helps mitigate the cost of doing business, and a healthier populace works harder and more efficiently with more disposable income.

[Laize]

Universal health care is simply a state where everyone has access to workable health care. UHC is as theoretically doable under your Randian markets as it is under Single Payer.

And we've tried the all private thing and not only did many not have it, but many couldn't get it. There are always going to be people who are not sufficiently profitable to insure that they will be able to get insurance at a feasible rate.

In the end a single payer system would be economically good for us. Its cheaper than we have, freeing money to be spent on growth, it helps mitigate the cost of doing business, and a healthier populace works harder and more efficiently with more disposable income.

It seems to me an even cheaper solution to taxpayers would be requiring health insurance as a matter of being a US citizen or legal resident with subsidies for those who could not afford it. Instead of 100% of the costs being borne directly by the taxpayers it would be some significantly lower percentage.

[Wells]

It seems to me an even cheaper solution to taxpayers would be requiring health insurance as a matter of being a US citizen or legal resident with subsidies for those who could not afford it.

Which is what we are going to get under Obamacare, though I'm not fond of being forced to purchase insurance without a public option.

[Laize]

Which is what we are going to get under Obamacare, though I'm not fond of being forced to purchase insurance without a public option.

And why is that? Insurance is insurance.

Personally I have no desire to fund health care with tax dollars. If Vermont wants to, let them. I have no doubt it will draw people to live in that state. For better or worse remains to be seen.

[Wells]

And why is that? Insurance is insurance.

Because I'm not a fan of having to purchase from a private entity if I don't want to (note I'm not saying the mandate is unconstitutional or that I disagree with it). Its just corporatism.

[goobernoob]

I am not a fan of single payer health insurance but I think it would be better then what we currently have, right now hospitals are required to treat uninsured folks that can't pay of their treatment, the result is highly bloated prices for folks that can pay and with a normal insurance plan all most folks see is the deductible which is constant.
I dislocated my shoulder once on one of my reserve weekends and was sent to the hospital because our corpsman wasn't willing to treat it on the spot. It took 5 minutes with a doctor, 10 minutes with a nurse, an x-ray and 5 minutes with a receptionist, it cost the corps over $5000 for under an hour there to do something that anyone could do, just pull on my arm until it snaps back in place. I'm just glad I didn't have to pay it =)

A mandated single payer system would get rid of some of that by making insurance mandatory and averaging out the costs, the problem I see happening is keeping individual treatment costs (to the government) under control, the federal government isn't exactly known for being able to control costs.

[Laize]

I am not a fan of single payer health insurance but I think it would be better then what we currently have, right now hospitals are required to treat uninsured folks that can't pay of their treatment, the result is highly bloated prices for folks that can pay and with a normal insurance plan all most folks see is the deductible which is constant.
I dislocated my shoulder once on one of my reserve weekends and was sent to the hospital because our corpsman wasn't willing to treat it on the spot. It took 5 minutes with a doctor, 10 minutes with a nurse, an x-ray and 5 minutes with a receptionist, it cost the corps over $5000 for under an hour there to do something that anyone could do, just pull on my arm until it snaps back in place. I'm just glad I didn't have to pay it =)

A mandated single payer system would get rid of some of that by making insurance mandatory and averaging out the costs, the problem I see happening is keeping individual treatment costs (to the government) under control, the federal government isn't exactly known for being able to control costs.

That last part is one f the reasons I'm so against single payer.

If a monopoly is bad, why isn't a monopsony? Through this the government becomes able to fix prices. Rather than health care workers getting paid what they think they're worth, they get paid what the government wants to pay because without it, they have no employ.

[Felya]

If a monopoly is bad, why isn't a monopsony? Through this the government becomes able to fix prices. Rather than health care workers getting paid what they think they're worth, they get paid what the government wants to pay because without it, they have no employ.

How much would you pay to stay alive?

[Laize]

How much would you pay to stay alive?

No one can deny the demand for health care is infinite. I'd pay whatever was asked.

[Advilnaar]

No one can deny the demand for health care is infinite. I'd pay whatever was asked.

Problem is... how much can you pay. And... can someone live continuously an upper class lifestyle on what you pay?

Also.. what level of care? You want someone to give you 5 ice creams and fluff your pillow every 30 minutes on medicare? Not happening.

[Felya]

A mandated single payer system would get rid of some of that by making insurance mandatory and averaging out the costs, the problem I see happening is keeping individual treatment costs (to the government) under control, the federal government isn't exactly known for being able to control costs.

How much worse can prices be, than having a for profit entity as middle man between you and healthcare? An entity that spends fortunes on influencing the government through lobbying. We already have a bloated, over priced and over reaching entity acting as middle man. I don't see the government as being worse than their puppeteers.